What Are The Three Branches Of The Criminal Justice System
The United States (U.S.) Criminal Justice System (CJS) consists of three interconnected branches that rely on communication and collaborative efforts to function and meet the needs of society. The three CJS branches of law enforcement, courts, and corrections can appear autonomous but it is common for all three branches to share responsibilities and rely on information collected from various areas of the CJS. Some examples of necessary collaboration and communication situations between CJS branches include legal searches, investigations, and pre-sentence reporting. Supreme Court decisions or major state cases will also influence the roles and responsibilities of the CJS branches at both the state and federal levels (Fagin, 2017). Lastly, research
…show more content…
findings will used to try and determine a path forward regarding a personal criminal justice career path.
One common area of interagency communication and collaboration is legal searches. Legal search methods vary amongst CJS personnel depending on the branch/agency. Legal search procedures of police officers encompass the conducting of investigations and collecting evidence for use in court, while balancing search techniques with a suspect’s civil liberties and rights provided by the U.S. and state constitutions. Under Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution, police are not permitted to search or seize persons or property without a warrant or probable cause (“U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4”, 2010). Should an officer obtain a search warrant or have probable cause (i.e., search incident to lawful arrest), they can search and seize persons and/or property (Fagin, 2017). Additionally police officers can observe suspect activity, use field computers to collect vehicle records and other information, secure crime scenes and collect evidence, and maintain detailed records that will be used for presenting cases in the courtroom (“What Police and Detectives Do”, 2017). Meanwhile, probation officers have more flexibility regarding search and seizure. Probation officers supervise individuals placed on probation. The probation officer frequently visits the probationer to ensure they are not a danger to the community and write detailed reports concerning the probationer’s rehabilitation plan and their overall progress (“What Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists Do”, 2018). Probation officers do not require search warrants and can readily search probationers on their person and/or their property (Fagin, 2017). Lastly, correctional officers appear to have the most search/seizure power. Correctional officers oversee those in detainment and enforce rules in prisons or jails. Correctional officers inspect facilities and inmate cells on a regular basis to screen for contraband, security breaches, unsanitary conditions, and/or other rule violations. Correctional officers also search visitors and incoming mail for prohibited articles. Such search practices by correctional officers are meant to prevent escapes, assaults, and disturbances in the prison/jail environment (“What Correctional Officers and Bailiffs Do”, 2017).
In some cases, personnel from different branches in the CJS will need to collaborate during legal searches.
For example, interagency collaboration between law enforcement and the courts would be necessary if a police officer was conducting an investigation and needed access to evidence submitted into the court record (Fagin, 2017). Another collaboration scenario is a police officer wanting to know who contacted an incarcerated prisoner in-person or by phone. The police officer would need to collaborate with the prisoner’s corrections officer. The corrections officer will have records of inmate activity and would be aware of who visited the prisoner and/or talked with him over the phone (“What Correctional Officers and Bailiffs Do”, 2017). In the case of conviction, like that of Lou who committed burglary, a pre-sentence report must be completed before a sentence is imposed by the court. The probation officer is responsible for the pre-sentence investigation/report and must interview the defendant to define their characteristics and investigate financial or other circumstances affecting the defendant’s behavior. This could include interviewing the defendant’s family, friends, etc. The probation officer will also need to obtain information about any prior criminal record, which means collaborating with officers of the court and/or police officers that investigated the defendant. The probation officer also needs to collect information about harm and/or restitution of any victims impacted by the defendant’s offense. Additionally, the probation officer must identify an appropriate type of sentence for the court to impose, which means consulting with attorneys and possibly the judge (“Rule 32. Sentencing and Judgment”, n.d.). The range and scope of information a probation officer must retrieve to compile a pre-sentence report demonstrates why interagency communication and collaboration is imperative to the CJS
process.
Concerning the court system, the case of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) impacted the role of the corrections practitioner by raising awareness and establishing standards and basic rights/protections concerning inmate healthcare access. In that case, an inmate named Gamble suffered injury when a bail of cotton landed on him while he was unloading a truck. After being prescribed medication and ignored concerning his increasing pain, Gamble sued for his right to healthcare. Eventually the case reached the Supreme Court, where it was determined that inmates rely on prison authorities for medical needs and failure to address it could result in “torture or a lingering death.” The outcome fashioned three major rights: (1) right to healthcare access, (2) “the right to care that is ordered,” and (3) “the right to professional medical judgement.” These three rights increase the responsibilities of the corrections practitioner to ensure inmates are receiving adequate physical and mental healthcare, which can be difficult when prisons/jails are overcrowded with inmates and understaffed by personnel (Conway, 2009). Based on these findings, communication and collaboration efforts between police and officers of the court sparked some personal interest. However, there is not enough information to presently determine a personal career path within the criminal justice field.
findings will used to try and determine a path forward regarding a personal criminal justice career path.
One common area of interagency communication and collaboration is legal searches. Legal search methods vary amongst CJS personnel depending on the branch/agency. Legal search procedures of police officers encompass the conducting of investigations and collecting evidence for use in court, while balancing search techniques with a suspect’s civil liberties and rights provided by the U.S. and state constitutions. Under Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution, police are not permitted to search or seize persons or property without a warrant or probable cause (“U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4”, 2010). Should an officer obtain a search warrant or have probable cause (i.e., search incident to lawful arrest), they can search and seize persons and/or property (Fagin, 2017). Additionally police officers can observe suspect activity, use field computers to collect vehicle records and other information, secure crime scenes and collect evidence, and maintain detailed records that will be used for presenting cases in the courtroom (“What Police and Detectives Do”, 2017). Meanwhile, probation officers have more flexibility regarding search and seizure. Probation officers supervise individuals placed on probation. The probation officer frequently visits the probationer to ensure they are not a danger to the community and write detailed reports concerning the probationer’s rehabilitation plan and their overall progress (“What Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists Do”, 2018). Probation officers do not require search warrants and can readily search probationers on their person and/or their property (Fagin, 2017). Lastly, correctional officers appear to have the most search/seizure power. Correctional officers oversee those in detainment and enforce rules in prisons or jails. Correctional officers inspect facilities and inmate cells on a regular basis to screen for contraband, security breaches, unsanitary conditions, and/or other rule violations. Correctional officers also search visitors and incoming mail for prohibited articles. Such search practices by correctional officers are meant to prevent escapes, assaults, and disturbances in the prison/jail environment (“What Correctional Officers and Bailiffs Do”, 2017).
In some cases, personnel from different branches in the CJS will need to collaborate during legal searches.
For example, interagency collaboration between law enforcement and the courts would be necessary if a police officer was conducting an investigation and needed access to evidence submitted into the court record (Fagin, 2017). Another collaboration scenario is a police officer wanting to know who contacted an incarcerated prisoner in-person or by phone. The police officer would need to collaborate with the prisoner’s corrections officer. The corrections officer will have records of inmate activity and would be aware of who visited the prisoner and/or talked with him over the phone (“What Correctional Officers and Bailiffs Do”, 2017). In the case of conviction, like that of Lou who committed burglary, a pre-sentence report must be completed before a sentence is imposed by the court. The probation officer is responsible for the pre-sentence investigation/report and must interview the defendant to define their characteristics and investigate financial or other circumstances affecting the defendant’s behavior. This could include interviewing the defendant’s family, friends, etc. The probation officer will also need to obtain information about any prior criminal record, which means collaborating with officers of the court and/or police officers that investigated the defendant. The probation officer also needs to collect information about harm and/or restitution of any victims impacted by the defendant’s offense. Additionally, the probation officer must identify an appropriate type of sentence for the court to impose, which means consulting with attorneys and possibly the judge (“Rule 32. Sentencing and Judgment”, n.d.). The range and scope of information a probation officer must retrieve to compile a pre-sentence report demonstrates why interagency communication and collaboration is imperative to the CJS
process.
Concerning the court system, the case of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) impacted the role of the corrections practitioner by raising awareness and establishing standards and basic rights/protections concerning inmate healthcare access. In that case, an inmate named Gamble suffered injury when a bail of cotton landed on him while he was unloading a truck. After being prescribed medication and ignored concerning his increasing pain, Gamble sued for his right to healthcare. Eventually the case reached the Supreme Court, where it was determined that inmates rely on prison authorities for medical needs and failure to address it could result in “torture or a lingering death.” The outcome fashioned three major rights: (1) right to healthcare access, (2) “the right to care that is ordered,” and (3) “the right to professional medical judgement.” These three rights increase the responsibilities of the corrections practitioner to ensure inmates are receiving adequate physical and mental healthcare, which can be difficult when prisons/jails are overcrowded with inmates and understaffed by personnel (Conway, 2009). Based on these findings, communication and collaboration efforts between police and officers of the court sparked some personal interest. However, there is not enough information to presently determine a personal career path within the criminal justice field.