Criminal Justice Policy Paper

Our criminal justice system demands a continuous evolution to create success within the department. The last 60 years society has provoked change with our criminal justice system. These changes vary across three different areas inside the departments; corrections, courts, and policy. Corrections had a large advancement in their policy with PREA. PREA is the prison rape elimination act and protects offenders and employees. The criminal justice court system made adjustments to policies on self-defense by creating the standard your ground law. A major policy change took place in the state of Arizona due to illegal immigration. The policy was show your paper law. Identifying the opportunities for cooperation between the different elements of
the criminal justice system and implementing those policies.
In the 1980’s and 90’s, a “get tough on crime” mentality permeated society leading to changes in sentencing laws for inmates in a correctional facility. This has led to insensitivity over the flight of incarcerated persons, including false, inhumane beliefs such as; those perceived as lesbians, gay, bisexual or transgender bring sexual violence upon himself or herself, those who have committed violent crimes deserve to be sexually assaulted. “The purpose of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) is to establish a zero-tolerance standard for the incidence of sexual violence in corrections in the United States”. Sexual violence in corrections is typically not reported, and generally inmates are not evaluated properly. Resulting in receiving little to no assistance and treatment for the psychological and physical effects from sexual assaults. Majority of correctional officers start the job unprepared and not sufficiently informed on how to deal with inmates that have been sexually assaulted.
While studies show the rate of HIV and AIDS in juvenile correctional facilities is low, sexual violence places youth at risk for increase in effective inmates including increase in sexually transmitted disease’s. Sexual violence has a tremendous emotional impact on survivors, many of whom suffer from the effects of trauma. Sexual violence often exacerbates racial tensions when the violence is interracial in nature. This is particularly true in correctional populations that are divided among racial lines. The program is to set a standard of making sexual violence a topmost priority in the correctional industry, and implementation of standards for combating prison rape or sexually assaults.
Some private security and law enforcement opt to cooperate informally. For example, a New Jersey partnership has evolved into an informal network that allows local, state, and federal law enforcement officials based in the area to meet with security professionals and top executives in some of the county’s fortune 500 companies (Operation Cooperation, 1999). None of the sessions have a formal agenda after each speaker and participants can offer or give their advice on security jobs or discuss how the police can benefit from corporate security professionals on how to prevent criminal activity.
Other private security and law enforcement opt to cooperate in a formal manner, they believe this form of structure will increase longevity.
An example of this is, Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance which sponsors educational presentations at its meetings, works to apply problem solving approaches to public safety issues. This structure maintains a private and public information network, in which it conducts shared training programs and tries to influence Legislation (Operation Cooperation, 1999).
An additional form of cooperation is Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), where the police are contacted by a security contractor working under a BID contract. The security contractor will contact the police when an arrest needs to be made. The security officers work as extra ears and eyes for the police. At times the police will provide free training and crime prevention information to the security contractor.
The last cooperation program is the Familiarity and Goodwill program, its main purpose is to familiarize private security professionals and individual law enforcement shared training programs and tries to influence Legislation (Operation Cooperation,
1999).
An additional form of cooperation is Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), where the police are contacted by a security contractor working under a BID contract. The security contractor will contact the police when an arrest needs to be made. The security officers work as extra ears and eyes for the police. At times the police will provide free training and crime prevention information to the security contractor.
The last cooperation program is the Familiarity and Goodwill program, its main purpose is to familiarize private security professionals and individual law enforcement with each other. Normally, the mediator in a private security agency will host a yearly law enforcement appreciation night. The benefit is forming relationships between private and local law and assisting with security policies and procedures.
There have been many changes to police policy since the 1950’s. Over this timeframe individual policies to ensure police have not violated rights to policies concerning the very style of policing individual departments should follow have been instituted nationwide.
One of the most recognizable police policy issues to the American public is Miranda v Arizona (1966). Even though Miranda Rights are known for Ernesto Miranda, there were several other cases of uninformed arrestees being coerced into making confessions not in the presence of a lawyer. The top cases of this kind were;
Vignera v. New York: “Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior. He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad, where he orally admitted the robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.” (uscourts.gov) Westover v. United States: “Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California. These statements were introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit." (uscourts.gov)
California v. Stewart: “In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Steward was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewart’s wife and three other people who were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant to hurt her. At that time, police released the four other people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the crime. At trial, Stewart’s statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.” (uscourts.gov)
In light of the many cases of police coercion, with these four cases at the front of the argument, the Supreme Court found that Fifth Amendment Rights afforded to individuals by the Constitution should not be restricted to the courtroom but in any manner where a person’s freedom and liberty is at risk.
This would include arrest by police and police interrogation, since that is the initial step in an individuals’ loss of freedom. After this finding by the Supreme Court police departments were mandated to institute policy concerning the protection of their arrestees constitutional rights, and to be sure that an individual is aware of their constitutional rights they were from then on mandated to explain those
rights.
Aside from court cases which brought about change, of which there were many more than Miranda v. Arizona, there was also policy introduced to change the culture and structure of police departments. In the 1950’s up to the 1970’s police philosophy and policy revolved around a more centralized “no tolerance” attitude toward crime. However, this police philosophy and policy created a distinct division between the police and the citizens which the police protect. The 1960’s and early 1970’s social movements at the time illustrated how deeply the populous feel distant from their police. In an effort to repair the damage, and out of a perceived need to change out of Kelling and Wilsons’ “Broken Windows” thesis, the police strategists proposed a more community oriented form of policing. This would introduce policy and structure that would incorporate the public into policing strategies. This would involve the public and hopefully make them feel included and not segregated from their police, and would also open up opportunities for police to gain more information. The late 1970’s, 1980’s and early 1990’s saw this type of police and organizational changes toward community policing. In the 1990’s there were some departments moving back toward “no tolerance” policies and organization. In 2001, the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon ushered in a new era of policing in America. Since then American police have been increasingly militarized. A phenomenon defended by their new duties in terrorist detection and prevention, and the long standing “war on drugs”, which the government, state, municipal and local police use to prescribe military equipment be given to them to fight an ongoing “war on terror” and “war on drugs”.
“The civilian police force and the military have fundamentally different missions. The Military exists to battle and subdue foreign enemies, while the police force 's mission is to serve and protect their neighbors. However, the distinct lines between the two are becoming blurred. Beat cops have been replaced by special ops.
The trend of militarization in our police departments began long before during the social unrest in the 1960s, and the escalation of the war on drugs led to the creation and expansion of SWAT teams. The federal government has given billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment to civilian police forces to assist with these efforts.” (Ritchie, J., 2014)
Recently we have seen an increase in militarization, and this increase of a local “standing army” has not gone unnoticed. Over the past few years our nation has seen many protests, riots, and angered citizens over the presence of a militarized police force throughout the nation. The no tolerance policy which accompanies a militarized police force generally includes brutal tactics, and these tactics have become a spotlight on the current police policy of militarization. In many cases the public have demanded a change to have representatives of the neighborhood be police officers. That means to this writer that they wish to see regular citizens become an officer, and not someone from outside the neighborhood who will easily prescribe to a militarized mentality. The public and some litigators in many areas are pushing for a police policy return to a more community-oriented style of policing and policy.
Evolution is a necessary process and something that must recur often for anything to be successful. Our criminal justice system requires evolution between corrections, court, and policies.
References
Marion, N. him and him and E., & Oliver, W. M. (2006). The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
National PREA Resource Center. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/training-technical-assistance/prea-essentialsOperation Cooperation. (1999, May). A Literature Review of Cooperation and Partnerships Between Law Enforcement and Private Security Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.ili.org/publications/docs/operations-cooperation
Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States. (2009). Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/print/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states
Ritchie, J., The Rise of Robocop, The Huffington Post, 2014, www.huffingtonpost.com
United States Courts, Facts and Case Summary Miranda v. Arizona (1966), www.uscourts.gov