Question 1 Discuss the three leadership positions (supervisors, managers, and administrators) in criminal justice agencies. Include specific examples of each leadership position’s roles and responsib
MCJ 5390, Critical Analysis of Criminal Justice Administration 1 Cou rse Learning Outcomes for Unit I Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 2. Explain the organizational history of law enforcement entities. 2.1 Explain the criminal justice model. 2.2 Examine the three leadership positions (supervisors, managers, and administrators) historically found within criminal justice agencies. 2.3 Compare and contrast descriptions and functions of the criminal justice system to include process, network, nonsystem, and true system. Course/Unit Learning Outcomes Learning Activity 2.1 Unit Lesson Chapter 1 Article: “ The 40th Anniversary of the Crime Report,” pp. 20 –23 Report: The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: A report by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, pp. 261 –263 Unit I Assessment 2.2 Unit Lesson Unit I Assessment 2.3 Unit Lesson Unit I Assessment Required Unit Resources Chapter 1: The Study and Scope of Justice Administration In order to access the following resources, click the links below. Read pp. 20 –23 in the document below. Feucht, T. E., & Zedlewski , E. (2007, June). The 40th anniversary of the crime report. National Institute of Justice Journal, 2007 (257), 20 –23. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/jr000257.pdf Read pp. 261 –263 in the document below, starting with the following subheading: “Systems Analysis of Criminal Justice.” The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967, February). The challenge of crime in a free society: A repo rt by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/42.pdf Unit Lesson Welcome! In this course, we will explore various aspects of criminal justice administration. The goal for this course is to provide you with information that you can utilize in your current or future criminal justice career. To do this, one of the main lea rning objectives in this course is to help you obtain an understanding of the role of a criminal justice administrator. Administrative positions in criminal justice include, but are not limited to, correctional leadership, police leadership, and court lead ership. Clear leadership skills and defined responsibilities contribute to a thriving and successful working environment for criminal justice professionals. UNIT I STUDY GUIDE Criminal Justice Administration Overview MCJ 5390, Critical Analysis of Criminal Justice Administration 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title To help facilitate your understanding of successful leadership strategies, we must first define the roles and responsibilities of administrators within our American criminal justice agencies. Leadership Positions in Criminal Justice Leadership within criminal justice organizations can be broken down into three distinct roles: supervisors, managers, a nd administrators. In criminal justice, you may find yourself working up the line of ranks as you progress throughout your career. Let’s start with supervisors because this rank will probably be your first leadership role. Supervisors “occupy the lowest po sition of leadership in an organizational hierarchy, and typically plan, organize, and direct staff members in their daily activities ” (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2019, p. 4). An example of a supervisor in law enforcement would be a police detective. This individu al is often a seasoned law enforcement officer who has numerous years of experience on the job. Therefore, police detectives often understand how individuals function in the community they serve and protect. Police detectives typically have built a positiv e and honest line of communication with the community, which provides for an establishment of trust between police officers and the citizens. Next, we will move up the ranks to the next leadership role of managers. Peak and Giacomazzi (2019) define a man ager as a person in the intermediate level of management, responsible for carrying out the policies and directives of upper -level administrators and supervising subordinate managers and employees. This is the middle level individual who is often tasked wit h making sure the vision and mission of the administrator are adhered to and followed. Managers will implement new policies and procedures that were approved by the higher level of leadership. Finally, within the leadership ranks is the role of administr ators. These individuals are usually the highest – ranking individual within a particular criminal justice agency. An administrator is the person whose focus is on the overall organization, its mission, acquisition and use of resources, and agency relationsh ip with external organizations and groups (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2019). For those of you who are in the military, you will find police and correctional organizations are structured in a paramilitary style and also use a rank structure system of promotion. No matter which leadership position one may hold in criminal justice, a fundamental understanding of the criminal justice process must be examined and comprehended. This includes an understanding of how the process has changed over time. Understanding that the criminal justice process has adapted to keep in step with a changing society, new norms, and evolving technology is important. As you grasp the fundamental understanding of the process, seeing the evolution will make you better able to handle changes that inevitably will happen as more time passes. So, what is the criminal justice process? According to our textbook, the criminal justice process is “the decisions and actions taken by an institution, offender, victim or society that influence the offend er’s movement into, through or out of the justice system” (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2019, p. 6). There are many variables that could shift and influence which avenue the individual will take within the U.S. criminal justice system. Take a few minutes, and think of a few variables that could change the direction in which an offender takes in the U.S. criminal justice system. Here are a few variables to consider: age, offense, prior offenses, locality, laws, bias, and discretion of the criminal justice professional with whom the offender comes into contact. Further, although we are discussing the criminal justice system as a whole, we should remember that the U.S. criminal justice system is comprised of separate entities (corrections, police, and courts). Each entit y has its own unique and separate responsibilities. The Criminal Justice Model The U.S. criminal justice system and model is unique in how offenders are funneled and moved throughout the system. As you examine Figure 1 -1 on page 7 of your textbook, you will find various paths that the offender could take once an arrest is made. Be sure to fully review this figure in your textbook, as it explores the factors that might influence the avenues which an individual can take once an arrest is made by law enforc ement officers. The criminal justice process for each individual arrested is not the same. There are many factors to consider that include but are not limited to, the criteria below: MCJ 5390, Critical Analysis of Criminal Justice Administration 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title  local and state laws,  the law enforcement’s discretion,  the judge’s di scretion, and  the offender’s previous convictions or arrests . No organization is without its faults or need for improvements. As mentioned above, there are three entities that make up the U.S. justice system (corrections, police, and courts). Although the overall common goal is protecting citizens and deterring futur e criminal activity, we will sometimes find that these criminal justice entities do not work well together in achieving the common goal. Peak and Giacomazzi (2019) argue the question of whether the criminal justice system in the United States is actually a criminal justice system or a criminal justice nonsystem. So, what does this actually mean? According to Peak and Giacomazzi (2019), a criminal justice nonsystem is the view that police, courts and corrections agencies do not function harmoniously, are not a coordinated structure, and are neither efficient nor fair enough to create fear of punishment or respect for their values. Spend some time asking yourself whether this is the case and why. One perspective presented in your textbook is the problematic is sue of system fragmentation. Simply put, system fragmentation proposes that there is too much discretion within criminal justice professions, thus preventing uniformity. Without uniformity, it is quite difficult for all entities to stay focused on the main goal of protecting citizens and deterring future criminal activity. Peak and Giacomazzi (2019) state that system fragmentation is the view that members of police, courts and correctional agencies have tremendous discretion and their own perception of the offender, resulting in goal conflict. Do you think this perspective has merit? As mentioned earlier, no system is without its faults. As leaders in your criminal justice field, you will be tasked to make, improve, and implement changes within your respect ive organizations. Sometimes these tasks for establishing improvements and change will be met with pushback from your employees. Your leadership style will and can dictate how individuals within your criminal justice organization will manage change. W hat a re some leadership styles and characteristics that you think will help you in your future leadership roles and positions? Criminal Justice as a Social Contract Let’s change direction for a bit, shall we? Do you consider yourself a rational individual? We ll, most people believe that they make (or at least try to make) rational and clear decisions. One of the historical aspects and reasons for the makeup of the U.S. criminal justice system is the perspective that humans are not rational in all occasions and decisions. Because we do not make rational decisions at all times, we must have a criminal justice system to police ourselves. Therefore, we have established a social contract concept. This social contract perspective has been present in our laws for more than 200 years. Let’s consider John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government, which your textbook authors mention. According to Locke, in regard to the state of nature, people are free, equal, independent, and with inherent inalienable rights to life , liberty, and property (as cited in Peak & Giacomazzi, 2019). Therefore, all Americans have the right to protect themselves and their homes from anyone who would take and infringe upon these liberties and rights inherent to citizens. To avoid the possibil ity of such a brutal existence, “People joined together, forming governments to which they surrendered their right of self -protection” (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2019, p. 11). This is what is called a social contract . Think of contracts that you have signed in yo ur life. You are typically giving up one thing to gain another. Basically, this is also a social contract. American citizens are Are there any other factors you think will affect the criminal justice process for an individual who is arrested? (Iqoncept, n.d.) MCJ 5390, Critical Analysis of Criminal Justice Administration 4 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title giving up some rights for the protection of government agencies (local, state, and federal). As crime changes and takes on diff erent forms, the social contract will shift according to the political and criminal climate in the United States. If we are examining domestic terrorism, we can see that our social contract changed with the passing of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which gav e the federal government more authority and discretion. In return, Americans should reap greater protection against another domestic terrorist attack. Conclusion We have examined three specific leadership roles and responsibilities found in the U.S. cri minal justice system. We also explored the criminal justice model found on page 6 of your textbook. Please take a few minutes to review the criminal justice model. We explored the criminal justice system in relation to the criminal justice nonsystem. Lastl y, we learned about the historical social contract ideology that is present in our current criminal justice system and how this social contract evolves to be dependent on the criminal climate. Edwin Sutherland’s social learning theory seems to support the social contract theory established by John Locke . Basically, the social learning theory suggests that all behaviors, whether good or bad, are learned through our social surroundings. As we move into Unit II, we will examine prominent theories that relate t o criminal justice administrators. References Iqoncept. (n.d.). What do you think survey poll question [Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.dreamstime.com/royalty -free -stock -photo -what -do -you -think -survey -poll -question – image20602105 Peak, K. J., & Giacomazzi, A. L. (2019). Justice administration: Police, courts, and corrections management (9th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Question 1 Discuss the three leadership positions (supervisors, managers, and administrators) in criminal justice agencies. Include specific examples of each leadership position’s roles and responsib
A Criminal Justice Process? What is readily seen in the foregoing discussion is that our CJS may not be a system at all. Given its current operation and fragmentation, it might be better described as a criminal justice process. As a process, it involves the decisions and actions taken by an institution, offender, victim, or society that influence the offender’s movement into, through, or out of the justice system.4 In its purest form, the criminal justice process functions as shown in Figure 1-1. Note that the horizontal effects result from factors, such as the amount of crime, the number of prosecutions, and the type of court disposition affecting the population in correctional facilities and rehabilitative programs. Vertical effects represent the primary system steps or procedures.5 At one end of this process are the police who understandably may view their primary role as getting lawbreakers off the street. At the other end of the process are the corrections officials who may see their role as being primarily custodial in nature. Somewhere in between are the courts that try to ensure a fair application of the law to each case coming to the bar. As a process, the justice system cannot reduce crime by itself, nor can any of the component parts afford to be insensitive to the needs and problems of the other parts. In criminal justice planning jargon, “You can’t rock one end of the boat.” In other words, every action has a reaction, especially in the justice process. If, say, a bond issue for funds to provide 10 percent more police officers on the streets is passed in a community, the additional arrests made by those added police personnel will have a decided impact on the courts and corrections components. Obviously, although each component operates largely on its own, the actions and reactions of each with respect to crime will send ripples throughout the process. Much of the failure to deal effectively with crime may be attributed to organizational and administrative fragmentation of the justice process. Fragmentation exists among the components of the process, within the individual components, among political jurisdictions, and among persons. A Criminal Justice Network? Other observers contend that U.S. justice systems constitute a criminal justice network.6 According to Steven Cox and John Wade, the justice system functions much like a television or radio network whose stations share many programs but in which each station also presents programs that the network does not air on other stations. The network appears as a three-dimensional model in which the public, legislators, police, prosecutors, judges, and correctional officials interact with one another and with others who are outside the traditionally conceived CJS.7 Furthermore, the criminal justice network is said to be based on several key yet erroneous assumptions, including the following: The components of the network cooperate and share similar goals. The network operates according to a set of formal procedural rules to ensure uniform treatment of all persons, the outcome of which constitutes justice. Each person accused of a crime receives due process and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Each person receives a speedy public trial before an impartial jury of his or her peers and is represented by competent legal counsel.8 Cox and Wade asserted that these key assumptions are erroneous for the following reasons: The three components have incompatible goals and are continually competing with one another for budgetary dollars. Evidence indicates that blacks and whites, males and females, and middle- and lower-class citizens receive differential treatment in the criminal justice network. Some persons are prosecuted, some are not; some are involved in plea bargaining, others are not; some are convicted and sent to prison, whereas others convicted of the same type of offense are not. A great deal of the plea negotiation process remains largely invisible, such as “unofficial probation” with juveniles. In addition, Cox and Wade argued, considerable evidence points to the fact that criminal justice employees do not presume their clients or arrestees to be innocent. Finally, these proponents of a network view of the justice process argued that the current backlog of cases does not ensure a speedy trial, even though a vast majority (at least 90%) of all arrestees plead guilty prior to trial.9 Adherents of this position, therefore, believe that our CJS is probably not a just network in the eyes of the poor, minority groups, or individual victims. Citizens, they also assert, may not know what to expect from such a network. Some believe that the system does not work as a network at all and that this conception is not worth their support.10 A Criminal Justice Nonsystem? Many observers argue that the three components of the CJS actually comprise a criminal justice nonsystem. They maintain that the three segments of the U.S. CJS that deal with criminal behavior do not always function in harmony and that the system is neither efficient enough to create a credible fear of punishment nor fair enough to command respect for its values. Indeed, these theorists are given considerable support by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (commonly known as the Crime Commission), which made the following comment: The system of criminal justice used in America to deal with those crimes it cannot prevent and those criminals it cannot deter is not a monolithic, or even a consistent, system. It was not designed or built in one piece at one time. Its philosophic core is that a person may be punished by the Government, if, and only if, it has been proven by an impartial and deliberate process that he has violated a specific law. Around that core, layer upon layer of institutions and procedures, some carefully constructed and some improvised, some inspired by principle and some by expediency, have accumulated. Parts of the system—magistrates, courts, trial by jury, bail—are of great antiquity. Other parts—juvenile courts, probation and parole, professional policemen—are relatively new. Every village, town, county, city, and State has its own criminal justice system, and there is a Federal one as well. All of them operate somewhat alike, no two of them operate precisely alike.11 Alfred Cohn and Roy Udolf stated that criminal justice “is not a system, and it has little to do with justice as that term is ordinarily understood.”12 Also in this school of thought are Burton Wright and Vernon Fox, who asserted that “the criminal justice system…is frequently criticized because it is not a coordinated structure—not really a system. In many ways this is true.”13 These writers would probably agree that little has changed since 1971, when Newsweek stated in a special report entitled “Justice on Trial” that America’s system of criminal justice is too swamped to deliver more than the roughest justice—and too ragged really to be called a system. “What we have,” says one former government hand, “is a non-system in which the police don’t catch criminals, the courts don’t try them, and the prisons don’t reform them. The system, in a word, is in trouble. The trouble has been neglect. The paralysis of the civil courts, where it takes five years to get a judgment in a damage suit—the courts—badly managed, woefully undermanned and so inundated with cases that they have to run fast just to stand still.”14 Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions, those words still ring true. Too often, today’s justice administrators cannot be innovators or reformers but rather simply “make do.” As one law professor stated, “Oliver Wendell Holmes could not survive in our criminal court. How can you be an eminent jurist when you have to deal with this mess?”15 Those who hold that the justice system is in reality no system at all can also point to the fact that many practitioners in the field (police, judges, prosecutors, correctional workers, and private attorneys) and academicians concede that the entire justice system is in crisis, even rapidly approaching a major breakdown. They can cite problems everywhere—large numbers of police calls for service, overcrowded court dockets, and high prison populations. In short, they contend that the system is in a state of dysfunction, largely as a result of its fragmentation and lack of cohesion.16 System fragmentation is largely believed to directly affect the amount and type of crime that exists. Contributing to this fragmentation are the wide discretionary powers possessed by actors in the justice system. For example, police officers (primarily those having the least experience, education, and training) have great discretion over whom they arrest and are effectively able to dictate policy as they go about performing their duties. Here again, the Crime Commission was moved to comment as follows, realizing that how the police officer moves around his or her territory depends largely on this discretion: Crime does not look the same on the street as it does in a legislative chamber. How much noise or profanity makes conduct “disorderly” within the meaning of the law? When must a quarrel be treated as a criminal assault: at the first threat, or at the first shove, or at the first blow, or after blood is drawn, or when a serious injury is inflicted? How suspicious must conduct be before there is “probable cause,” the constitutional basis for an arrest? Every [officer], however sketchy or incomplete his education, is an interpreter of the law.17 Judicial officers also possess great discretionary latitude. State statutes require judges to provide deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and incapacitation—all in the same sentence. Well-publicized studies of the sentencing tendencies of judges—in which participants were given identical facts in cases and were to impose sentences based on the offender’s violation of the law—have demonstrated considerable discretion and unevenness in the judges’ sentences. The nonsystem advocates believe this to be further evidence that a basic inequality exists—an inequality in justice that is communicated to the offender.18 Finally, fragmentation also occurs in corrections—the part of the criminal justice process that the U.S. public sees the least of and knows the least about. Indeed, as the Crime Commission noted, the federal government, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and most of the country’s 3,047 counties now engage in correctional activities of some form. Each level of government acts independently of the others, and the responsibility for the administration of corrections is divided within the given jurisdictions as well.19 With this fragmentation comes polarity in identifying and establishing the primary goals of the system. The police, enforcing the laws, emphasize community protection; the courts weigh both sides of the issue—individual rights and community needs; and corrections facilities work with the individual. Each of these groups has its own perception of the offender, creating goal conflict; that is, the goal of the police and the prosecutor is to get the transgressor off the street, which is antithetical to the caretaker role of the corrections worker who often wants to rehabilitate and return the offender to the community. The criminal justice process does not allow many alternative means of dealing with offenders. The nonsystem adherent believes that eventually the offender will become a mere statistic, more important on paper than as a human being.20 Because the justice process lacks sufficient program and procedural flexibility, these adherents argue that its workers either can circumvent policies, rules, and regulations or adhere to organizational practices they know are, at times, dysfunctional. (As evidence of the former, they point to instances of informal treatment of criminal cases; e.g., a police officer “bends” someone’s constitutional rights in order to return stolen property to its rightful owner, or a juvenile probation officer, without a solid case but with strong suspicion, warns a youth that any further infractions will result in formal court-involved proceedings.)

With the strategy plan attached before answer these questions In your strategic plan, you first mention utilizing SMART techniques, which includes Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time
LINCOLN POLICE DEPARTMENT GOALS AND VISION STATEMENT Lincoln Police Department Goals and Vision Statement Student’s name Institution Course Date Introduction As per the previous analysis, Lincoln, Nebraska, has a police department looking to embrace community policing. The aim is to bring the department and community to close working terms to facilitate more effortless law and order dispensation. Lincoln Police Department is one of the oldest and largest police departments. Therefore, the vision and goals should complement what the department seeks to accomplish in the long run of operations. Vision statement To be the leading department in community policing and utilize the public to increase law and order in the entire Nebraska region. Goals statement The department’s goal comply with the SMART technique. This technique means the plans will be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound. The community policing purpose will be to increase public participation in decisions that affect law and order. These goals will be based on the available resources and are subject to changes. Emphasis will be on strategies that can contain the levels of property crimes in the region. The aim is to ensure that within four years, target hardening strategies are implemented to protect the community from robbery and burglary. Rationale defending the goals and vision statements According to research by Kyle Peyton, Michael Sierra-Arévalo, and David G. Rand in 2019, Community-oriented policing (COP) creates a positive interaction and relations between the police and the public. These positive relations are essential in facilitating a professional working relationship between these two factions. The police department exists to serve the needs of the people. Part of that involves them working hand-in-hand with the general public to facilitate the principle of utilitarianism (Peyton et al., 2019). Every effort that the department makes must benefit the majority. Therefore, the police department in Lincoln should ensure they bring on board all the community influencers. Grass-root organizations are essential in community policing programs. One of the challenges in the region is the police handling of civilians. In 2019, there were reported incidents of riots that became violent between the police and the public. The easier way to ensure a decline in crime rates is by creating effective platforms where the police and public can share crimes. The online databases on crime rates in Lincoln, Nebraska, are examples of a platform that addresses these challenges. The forum keeps track of the crime rates and types, allowing the public to understand how best to deal with property crimes. They also identify the regions where crimes are more likely to occur and prepare better for dealing with the respective crimes (Kim & Hwang, 2021). The police department matches its vision and goals towards a common purpose of reducing crime through proper community policing. The strategic objective is to facilitate ensuring Lincoln, Nebraska, is peaceful and stable (Crowl, 2017). References Crowl, J. N. (2017). The effect of community policing on fear and crime reduction, police legitimacy and job satisfaction: an empirical review of the evidence. Police Practice and Research, 18(5), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2017.1303771 Kim, Y. S., & Hwang, E. G. (2021). A Critical Study on the Legitimacy of Introducing the Local Police System: Focusing on Community Policing. Korean Police Studies Review, 20(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.38084/2021.20.1.3 Peyton, K., Sierra-Arévalo, M., & Rand, D. G. (2019). A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(40), 19894– 19898. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910157116