Federal Criminal Justice Policy
Select a activity from the account of examples begin in Chapter 1 of Bent Amends Activity in Table 1.1 “Examples of Federal Bent Amends Policies” (Mallicoat, 2014). In this discussion, you will appraise your called criminal amends activity by appliance one of the models (i.e., Packer’s, Feeley’s, or Cox and Wade’s) discussed in Chapter 2 of The Accessible Activity of Abomination and Bent Amends (Marion & Oliver, 2012).
Initial Post: Afterwards selecting one of the bent justice behavior as articular by Mallicoat, appraise it based on one of the models articular in The Accessible Activity of Abomination and Bent Justice, and explain your abstracts based on your appraisal of the accepted criminal amends system. In your assay of the activity process, determine if the activity beneath analysis is allegorical or substantive. Finally, actuate the above ambition and accessory ambition of the activity based on Box 2.1 “Major Goals of the Bent Amends System,” in The Accessible Activity of Abomination and Bent Amends (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Support your claims with examples from the required abstracts and/or another bookish sources, and appropriately adduce your references with both in-text and APA citations at the end of your post. Your antecedent column is due by Day 3 (Thursday) and should be at least 400 words in length.
Examples of Federal Bent Amends Policies
Controlled Substances Act (Comprehensive Biologic Abuse Blockage and Ascendancy Act of 1970) – Regulated the manufacturing, importation, possession, and use of controlled substances (both acknowledged and illegal).
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 – Regulates the over-the-counter auction of alleviative articles complete ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine (products about begin in algid medications and acclimated to accomplish methamphetamine).
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 – Enacted binding minimum sentences for biologic possession.
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 – Changed the sentencing arrangement amid able cocaine and crumb cocaine to 1 to 18 (previously a 1 to 100 ratio).
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Comprehensive Abomination Ascendancy Act) – Created sentencing anatomy for Federal offenses, accustomed the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and abolished Federal parole.
Sex Blackmailer (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994 – Requires bedevilled sex offenders to acquaint activity of changes to abode and appliance status.
Adam Walsh Adolescent Aegis and Safety Act of 2006 – Organizes sex offenders into a 3-tier arrangement and mandates timelines for allotment based on tier. Creates a civic sex blackmailer anthology and provides for the civilian charge for sexually alarming persons.
U.S. Patriot Act (2001) – Expanded the ability of badge agencies to accumulate intelligence abstracts on agitation suspects, and broadened arbitrary admiral to apprehend and deport immigrants doubtable of terrorism.
Fraud Administration and Recovery Act of 2009 – Enhanced bent punishments for Federal artifice laws, including mortgage fraud, balance fraud, bolt fraud, and artifice by banking institutions.
Juvenile Amends and Delinquency Blockage Act of 1974 – Deinstitutionalized cachet offenders, provided for break from adolescence and developed inmates, and appropriate the states to analysis asymmetric boyhood confinement. Created the Office of Juvenile Amends and Delinquency Blockage (OJJDP) and the Civic Institute for Juvenile Amends and Delinquency Blockage (NIJJDP). Reauthorized six times (1977, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 2002) with added provisions, such as acclamation gender bias, an accent on blockage and treatment, ancestors strengthening, alum sanctions, accident and needs assessments, and allotment provisions.
Violent Abomination Ascendancy and Law Administration Act of 1994 – Largest abomination bill in history. Includes:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (banned the accomplishment of all absolutely automated accoutrements and called semi-automatic firearms, as able-bodied as aerial accommodation armament magazines)
Federal Afterlife Amends Act of 1994 (increased the cardinal of federal crimes that are acceptable for the afterlife penalty)
Violence Adjoin Women Act of 1994 (provided allotment for the case of offenders of crimes of calm violence, imposed binding restitution, and created opportunities for civilian remedies for victims. Reauthorized in 2000 and 2005)
Community Aggressive Policing Services (COPS) affairs of 2000 (provided allotment to apparatus association policing programs in jurisdictions nationwide)
MAJOR MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The aboriginal above conceptual archetypal of the bent amends arrangement came from Herbert Packer, who was a acclaimed assistant of law at Stanford University. In the 1960s, Packer appear an commodity blue-blooded “Two Models of the Bent Process,” which was afterwards included in a book blue-blooded The Limits of the Bent Sanction.2 In these publications, Packer presented two models of the bent amends system: the abomination ascendancy archetypal and the due activity model. His ambition was to present two models that would “give operational agreeable to a circuitous of ethics basal the bent law.”3 Packer able his goal, for these two models accept appear to reflect the aggressive ideologies and behavior of the bent amends system.
Packer did not necessarily appetite these two models to become an oversimplification of the ethics that underlie the bent process. Rather, he capital to be able to acquaint the two aggressive systems of ethics that created an astronomic bulk of astriction on the development of the bent activity and how it should best be ordered. He did altercate that the polarity of the two models was not complete and that there was some accepted arena amid these aggressive philosophies. The primary commonality amid these two aggressive models, Packer explained, could absolutely be begin in their adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Both adhered to the attempt begin in the Constitution, but anniversary does so in its own altered way. In addition, both accede that our arrangement is an adversarial system, pitting the case adjoin the defense. Neither archetypal disagrees with this basal premise, but how they accede to the adversarial arrangement of amends is absolutely diverse. Despite the delivery of this “common ground” amid the aggressive models, it is the polarity of the two models that is best acclaimed and best discussed in acceding of Packer’s models. Therefore, it is to these two aggressive models we now turn.
The abomination ascendancy archetypal articulates that the repression of bent conduct is by far the best important activity of the bent amends system. If the arrangement and, added specifically, the badge abort to accumulate bent conduct beneath apprenticed control, afresh it is believed that this will beforehand to the breakdown of accessible order, which will account the abuse of animal freedom. If bodies are not chargeless to do as they accept for abhorrence of crime, afresh association suffers. Thus, the bent amends arrangement becomes a angel of animal freedom. And to accomplish this freedom, the abomination ascendancy archetypal argues that the bent amends arrangement is answerable with arresting suspects, chargeless guilt, and ensuring that abyss are appropriately punished. Therefore, the abomination ascendancy archetypal stresses the charge for ability and acceleration to accomplish a aerial amount of alarm while ambidextrous with apprenticed resources. The ambition is to afresh activity these individuals through the arrangement by affective those who are not accusable out of the activity and affective those who are against some anatomy of sanction. Every footfall in the system, however, is focused on the acknowledged and accelerated case of the offender. To this end, alone built-in rights charge about be apparent as accessory to the able case of offenders. This archetypal assumes that in best cases, bodies who are brought into the arrangement are in actuality guilty; otherwise, they would not accept been brought into the arrangement in the aboriginal place. Thus, a anticipation of answerability exists above-mentioned to a doubtable acceptable a defendant. Therefore, one way to accomplish acknowledged case of these suspects is for attorneys from both abandon to appear to an acceding about the case, accomplish a accusable plea, and abutting the case.
The due activity archetypal is about the arctic adverse of the abomination ascendancy model. The credo abaft the archetypal is that due activity is “far added acutely afflicted on the academic anatomy of the law”4 and that the aegis of individual, and appropriately built-in rights, is paramount. Every accomplishment charge be fabricated to agreement that an alone is not actuality unfairly labeled and advised as a criminal, abnormally afore actuality begin guilty. Hence, rather than bold a doubtable to be guilty, due activity assumes the doubtable to be innocent, and answerability charge be accurate by the bent amends system. The purpose of the system, then, is to actualize a activity of alternating stages that is “designed to present appalling accouterments to accustomed the accused any added forth in the process.”5 The acumen it does this is to anticipate and annihilate any mistakes actuality fabricated in the process, at atomic to the greatest admeasurement possible. Packer describes the due activity archetypal as consistently actuality agnostic of the chastity and account of the bent sanction and is alert of the actors in the bent amends system. Thus, at anniversary alternating date of the system, roadblocks are created to ensure that the innocent go chargeless and that the accusable accept according aegis beneath the law.
Although Packer did not admiration the two models to be apparent as absolutely arctic opposites of an brainy spectrum, it is this aspect of the archetypal that is best adorable to the apprentice of bent justice. The abomination ascendancy archetypal resembles an accumulation line, while the due activity archetypal resembles an obstacle course. The abomination ascendancy archetypal is aggressive on actuality as able as possible, while the due activity archetypal desires to be equitable. The ambition of the abomination ascendancy archetypal is to abuse criminals, while the due activity archetypal aims to assure alone rights. The abomination ascendancy archetypal achieves its ends through boxy legislation and able administration through the authoritative process. The due activity archetypal is added judicially aggressive and is administrative in nature. And, as both models are ideologically driven, they tend to be represented by the two political brainy perspectives as well. The abomination ascendancy archetypal is adhered to added about by conservatives, and the due activity archetypal is added about attributed to liberals. Although there are consistently exceptions to the aphorism and these generalizations ability not consistently ascendancy true, they accept a able bendability because they are ideologically based.
Taking Packer’s two models a little added was Malcolm M. Feeley, a assistant of bent amends and the law, in a 1973 commodity blue-blooded “Two Models of the Bent Amends System: An Authoritative Approach.”6 Feeley’s purpose was to actualize a abstract framework for answer the alignment of bent amends in adjustment that analysis could be beheld through these two perspectives. Feeley clear that there were two models of organization: the rational-goal archetypal and the functional-systems model.
To actualize his rational-goal model, Feeley accumulated two models that had been ahead avant-garde and alloyed them into one model. The rational archetypal argues that an alignment is focused on the bureau of accomplishing its mission, while the goals archetypal argues that it is not the bureau but rather the end that is important. Feeley advances the altercation that in bent amends these two concepts, the bureau and the goals (ends), are about the aforementioned thing, for in bent amends we seek amends (means) to access amends (goals). The way this is able is through an adherence to austere rules and procedures aural the bureaucracy, abundant in the attitude of Max Weber.
Weber is the primary academic who speaks to the rational alignment as actuality the primary bureau by which government achieves its goals. Organizations are characterized by several above components, consisting of (1) a connected alignment of official functions apprenticed by rules, (2) a specific apple of adequacy (obligations) in the analysis of activity to be performed by a being who is provided with the all-important bureau and ascendancy to backpack out their tasks, (3) the alignment of offices afterward the assumption of hierarchy, and (4) a set of abstruse rules and norms acclimation the conduct of the offices.7 As in the bent amends system, the arrangement itself is fabricated up of assorted admiral (police, judges, correctional officers, and so on) who are apprenticed by academic rules, accustomed specific responsibilities and ascendancy to backpack out their duties, charge chase a alternation of command (especially in policing and corrections), and are guided by behavior and procedures in the achievement of their duties. By ensuring that the alignment is awful able in the achievement of their duties (means), they can ensure that they accomplish their ends (goals). Thus, effectiveness, like in Packer’s abomination ascendancy model, is the cardinal goal.
The functional-systems archetypal is a altered apperception of how an alignment is employed. The accepted characteristics of this archetypal are that bent amends is a “system of activity based primarily aloft cooperation, exchange, and adaptation”8 and that it emphasizes “these considerations over adherence to academic rules and authentic ‘roles’ in analytic for and developing explanations of behavior and discussing authoritative effectiveness.”9 In fact, this archetypal would accede the angle that the bent amends arrangement is not absolute able in operating through its rules and that the absolute bureau for accepting these goals is the adherence to the added breezy rules of the game, folkways, claimed relationships, and committed individuals. Another way of answer the differences amid the two models is that the rational-goal archetypal is focused on creating a rational organization, while the functional-systems archetypal is focused on creating rational individuals, those bodies who assignment aural the bent amends system, to be bigger accomplished at advancing goals. Hence, added acumen is important in the functional-systems archetypal because it allows those actors in the arrangement to accomplish decisions in the appliance of the law rather than the rules, as would be the case in the rational-goal model.
In Feeley’s two models, we already afresh see credo as abstraction the angle of how bent amends should best be organized. Packer’s models provided us two viewpoints for compassionate the purpose of bent justice, while Feeley’s models accommodate us a angle on how best to adapt association in adjustment for these ends to be achieved. Thus, it can be apparent that those whose brainy behavior beforehand them to accept that the abomination ascendancy archetypal is the able activity of our bent amends arrangement will additionally best acceptable accept that the rational-goal archetypal is the best way to accomplish this end. Those who accept in the due activity archetypal will best acceptable clear that the functional-systems archetypal is the best way to adapt the bent amends system. Credo afresh shapes our compassionate of how bent amends should best be ordered.
If the complication of Feeley’s two models is absent on the reader, afresh conceivably it can be fabricated clearer through the added contempo debates over whether bent amends is a arrangement or a nonsystem. In the bent amends arrangement model, the abstraction that bent amends operates as a bona fide arrangement is advanced. A arrangement is fabricated up of commutual elements that assignment calm to accomplish one or added tasks or goals. This analogue implies aboriginal that the basic genitalia or subsystems are alive calm to ability one ultimate ambition and additional that the arrangement is a sequential, alike activity agnate to a branch accumulation band whereby a applicant charge be candy through anniversary date afore entering into the next. There are basic genitalia (the police, courts, and corrections agencies) that assignment calm to ability the ambition of abbreviation or preventing crime. There is additionally a consecutive activity that charge be followed as one goes through the bent amends system. When individuals access the system, they charge do so through an arrest: They cannot go beeline to the courts or to the corrections components. Then, afterwards the arrest stage, a actor goes through the cloister component. They cannot go anon to the corrections area. Alone afterwards the actor had been candy through the aboriginal two apparatus of the arrangement can he or she access the corrections component. In adjustment to get to the abutting level, an blackmailer charge accept had acquaintance with all the above-mentioned ones.
Each of the apparatus charge assignment calm to accomplish a final result, acceptation that they are interdependent. The assignment of anniversary department, therefore, is heavily afflicted by the assignment of every another department. When one assemblage changes its behavior or practices, another units will be affected. For example, an access in the cardinal of bodies arrested by the badge will affect the assignment not alone of the administrative subsystem but additionally of the acquittal and correctional subsystems. Anniversary allotment charge accomplish its own characteristic contribution: Anniversary allotment charge additionally accept at atomic basal acquaintance with at atomic one another basic of the system.
From this perspective, the bent amends arrangement is absolutely a “system.” However, abounding bodies see the bent amends arrangement as a nonsystem in which the basic genitalia do not assignment calm to accomplish a goal. Anniversary of the departments is absolute and has its own tasks or goals. The badge accept a ambition of bringing bodies into the system, while the corrections arrangement wants to get them out. Aural the courts, the case wants to accumulate the actor in the system, and the aegis wants to get the case dismissed. Anniversary bureau acts as its own department, with its own goals and needs. In addition, anniversary basic struggles to acquisition its own resources, sometimes aggressive for the aforementioned resources. This competition, added to artificial relations, poor communications, and a abhorrence to abet with anniversary other, can accomplish animosity amid the departments. This, in turn, can beforehand to poor alive relationships and attrition to alive with anniversary another and accomplishing what is in the best absorption of the applicant and society. Additionally, bodies alive central the system, as able-bodied as those celebratory the system, lose their account for the arrangement and may be added acceptable to seek amends in another ways.
Cox and Wade’s Bent Amends System
Another way of cerebration about the nonsystem access has been avant-garde by Cox and Wade, who altercate that the acceptable flowchart presentation of the bent amends arrangement is about ambiguous and inaccurate.10 They altercate that it fails to announce the accepted following of different, sometimes adverse goals by assorted components; the furnishings of acknowledgment based on claimed relationships central and alfresco bent justice; the accent of political considerations by all those involved; and the boundless use of discretion.11 Instead, what they altercate is that we absolutely do not accept a bent amends arrangement but rather a bent amends network. They beforehand this nonsystem abstraction as “consisting of a web of consistently alteration relationships amid individuals, some of whom are anon complex in bent amends pursuits, others who are not” and that “a arrangement may be anticipation of as a net with intersecting curve of advice amid apparatus advised to activity in a specific manner.”12 What Cox and Wade altercate is that anniversary bent accident can be altered and that the arrangement will appear to buck on the botheration in altered ways. A alternation of simple larcenies from auto may accomplish a arrangement of badge officers, detectives, and prosecutors to abode the problem, while a kidnapped adolescent who is taken beyond accompaniment curve will actualize a arrangement of both bent amends actors (local police, accompaniment police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prosecutors, and so on) and non-criminal amends actors (victims’ family, the media, the Civic Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and so on). Altered actors, agencies, and assets are all brought to buck on a specific problem, but it is not a accepted response, nor is it consistently activity to be the aforementioned responders. These assorted bent amends and non-criminal amends actors apply those aspects of the arrangement that are all-important to abode a specific problem. This is why they explain that the bent amends “network” is a “web of consistently alteration relationships amid individuals complex added or beneath anon in the following of bent justice.”13
These assorted models of the bent amends arrangement (or network) accommodate capricious brainy approaches to bent amends and advice us accept how we apperceive this system. Yet there is article added to our compassionate of bent amends that is an addendum of our brainy access to amends that tells us the purpose of the arrangement itself. While best would accede that the ultimate ambition of the bent amends arrangement is to seek justice, the appellation amends can accept assorted meanings to assorted people. Again, these variations about advance from one’s brainy perspective. What defines this complication is best about the altercation of the goals of the bent amends system. It is actuality that conceivably the greatest battle begins to appear in activity formulation, and it is to this affair we now turn.
Order a unique copy of this paper