Setting Goals And Planning In The Criminal Justice System

Setting goals and objectives is an essential method of creating policies and planning because it is likely produce a successful strategy to for a desired outcome. A goal is a needed outcome or conceivable result that is imagined and proposed to be a success. Without goals and planning, people would be making decisions off the cusp and it would result in an epic fail because of lack of preparation. In regards to objectives, it is what’s created to happen once the goal and planning is approved. The criminal justice system initial plan is to protect the society by implementing ways to prevent crime and protect victims. Identifying problems is how they set the goals to protect society. If a plan works eighty percent of the time, it is considered
a success.
The criminal justice system has a purpose and it is broken down into five different goals; retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and restoration. Each goal is a design sanction for specific offenders and specific offenses. For instance, offenders with substance abuse issues would receive rehabilitation as their sanction. Also, each purpose of the criminal justice system is reducing recidivism. It is to sanction offenders in way that they will not commit crimes again. These goals are normally successful, but there are always people who are going to rebel.
The goal setting approach that would be appropriate in my opinion would be the “Bottom-up” approach.
When you start from the bottom-up, you can find out what went wrong during the process. For instance, if a cognitively disturbed offender is not granted incompetent to stand trial and is not given the appropriate sanction due to misjudgment, that offender would not receive the appropriate help due to that first decision. That first decision determines that offender’s fate in the criminal justice system. I think the bottom-up approach makes more sense than the “Top-Down” approach. It would make more sense to start at the root of a problem. If you start from the top to the bottom, you will see that people grant their conclusions based on the decisions the people below them made. Once a decision has reached the top, that choice is normally finalized and would take a process of backtracking to what the decisions were along the way. For example, top officials may never get a chance to meet the client, so for the top official to make the decision, the information must come from somewhere and that is at the bottom. Even if an examiner use the top-bottom approach, they will still end up starting at the bottom. To find out why a client acts the way they do, you must discuss previous incidents in their life and that would be considered the root of the problem. However, there are more than one way of doing things and some people may find the top-bottom more effective in setting goals. I
personally believe that the bottom-top would be more effective when it is time to set goals to implement sufficient plans.