Consensus Model In Criminal Justice

Matt Taibbi’s “The Divide” uses extensive research to attempt to contradict the understanding of our nonpartisan justice system. According to Taibbi, while poverty has increased, crime has decreased, and the jail population has increased 600% since 1991 (page xvi). He states while individuals are being prosecuted based on race and financial status. In which Taibbi argues that other offenders are not being prosecuted compared to minority groups.

Societies that use the adversarial system as their legal structure, define their relationship with the state as “the rule of law”. Rule of law is defined by the United Nations as a “principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the state itself are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, which are consistent with international human rights principles”. The adversarial system defines the public interest in criminal justice as an interest of crime control and security, where authorities such as prosecutors are trusted as long as they are democratically elected to power. Also comparative criminal justice consists of a “detailed understanding of not [the] just criminal justice processes but also the actors involved in it and the society that forms the backdrop to these processes”. Unlike in the inquisitorial system, the adversarial system was tailored in such a way to ensure that the state will not have too much power making decision in a criminal case, because it could lead to lack of trust in the system.

The two models of criminal justice are control model and due process model. The control model is a model focuses on the community as a whole this model is known to the most important of them all because it focuses on moving the process the case as quickly as possible to bring to a close. Packer resembles his control model as “ assembly line justice” (Bohm & Haley, 2014). The control model allows the individual who is accused of committed a crime is able to work free with a plea bargain.

Rhetorical Analysis Mortimer B. Zuckerman argues that we need to change the way our criminal justice system operates. He explains that there are more prisoners in a cell than the amount it was originally created for. Zuckerman also acknowledges the fact that incarceration rates are extremely high and that the vast majority of prisoners are nonviolent. The author believes that the way nonviolent criminals are dealt with today brings about negative consequences that could easily be avoided (Zuckerman). Zuckerman successfully convinces the reader that reform is needed in the criminal justice system by using several tactics such as eradicating common myths about incarceration, talking about the problem and solution while using logos, and appealing

(2014). The challenges and advantages of traditional hierarchical organizational models in justice administration. Journal of Criminal Justice Administration, 25(2), 145-163. Adams, J., & Brown, M. (2018).

The Criminal Justice system is one of the most important vessels within society due to its role in ensuring that society is abiding by its laws and holding those who transgress these laws to account. Despite its crucial role in society, it has also been under some scrutiny in regards to how effective it actually is, which results in arguments that it doesn’t properly fulfil its job as a carrier of justice. A focus on the criminal justice system is a subject of interest because it helps us understand the tension within society between individual rights and freedoms. (Schmalleger, F. and Koppel, T, 1999) Thus, this essay will be arguing that the criminal justice system is indeed broken.

The social issue I have chosen to focus on is the problem of violent crime and the inequalities and disparities in sentencing. This issue is rooted in systemic racial inequalities, which can result in harsher sentences for individuals from marginalized communities who are convicted of violent crimes such as murder. There is a growing body of research that highlights the need for reform within the criminal justice system to address these disparities and ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and justly. The history of racial disparity in the criminal justice system in the U.S. has been longstanding.

Nils Christie’s article Conflict as property discusses how conflicts have been stolen from the parties involved; victim and offender, by the state. Christie critiques state power and the formal criminal justice system, he believes that the state has too much power and it deprives its citizens of their capacity to resolve conflicts. The state is the barrier to achieving social harmony through restorative practices. Christie’s central argument about modern justice urges the need to eliminate the professionals, mainly lawyers, from the inner workings of conflict resolution in order to prevent the theft of conflicts. To support his claim, Christie presents examples of two non-westernized court systems which he calls “happenings” and “non-happenings” (Christie, 10) .

Introduction Crime, its punishment, and the legislation that decides the way in which they interact has long been a public policy concern that reaches everyone within a given society. It is the function of the judicial system to distribute punishment equitably and following the law. The four traditional goals of punishment, as defined by Connecticut General Assembly (2001), are: “deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.” However, how legislature achieves and balances these goals has changed due to the implementation of responses to changing societal influences. Mandatory minimum sentences exemplify this shift.

The reform of the criminal justice system in the United States

We have a system in place that is meant to serve the American people and incarcerate those who are a menace to society. A system like this seems good on paper, until the people in the system and those who contribute to it, taint it with their bias. We see this predominantly evident in the story written by Walter Dean Myers “Monster” and the documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning”. Though these things show us the same theme, they have their individual differences separating them.

In the formal criminal justice process, there are important decision makers that decide whether to keep the offender in the system or dismiss the suspect with no future consequences. Suppose a law was set in place

Some people think that the government should be more punitive when it comes to crime, that criminals should be caught and punished swiftly and harshly in order to protect society as a whole, while others believe that individual rights should be protected and that the criminal justice system needs to insure that individual rights are preserved. In 1964, a paper entitled, “Two Models of the Criminal Process”, was written by Herbert L. Packer that outlined these two thoughts for our society. Today, our criminal justice system is mainly based on the concept of the “Due Process

The criminal justice system is responsible for delivering punishment to breakers of the law, and according to Professor Colin S Diver, the criminal justice system derives its authority with a reliable “moral credibility” (Diver 5). However, the Norsefire methodology of delivering justice is not one that exhibits a

An important role is carried out by the criminal justice system in a democratic society. My philosophy and approach for balancing individual rights and public protection is that law enforcement authorities should restrict citizens’ liberties through force to compel obedience of law if those liberties cause harm to the society. Authorities maintain law and order by restricting freedoms of the citizens through force to constrain them to obey the law penalizing those who disobey the law. However, the citizens must be free to exercise the freedoms granted and guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the law must give way to reasonable exercise of civil liberties when those freedoms do not cause harm to others.