CRIMINAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION
BEHAVIOR AND CHALLENGES
Before
1960s criminology was dominated by disciplines of psychology and
sociology. It was in late 60s and early 70s that criminology started
to emerge as an independent field of study. Once established as an
independent discipline, criminal justice prompted formation of many
criminal justice organizations. Existing professional associations,
such as the American Society of Criminology (ASC), grew
substantially, new professional organizations such as the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) were formed, and the number of
criminology journals increased. Much of this development was due to
the availability of government funding for criminological research
and statistical analysis. (Lynch, 2008)
Assumptions
about organizational structure and process tend to operate
underground in criminal justice, just as they often do in research on
accounting and financial control, mental illness, and education,
among others. Criminal justice researchers often assume that criminal
justice organizations are instrumentalities for some larger social
purpose. Frequently, they ask if specified correctional operations
reduce crime by targeted individuals, or scare some unknown others
into noncriminal pursuits. Although ascendant organizational theories
have grown doubtful of functional assumptions, criminal justice
research has been slower to abandon research paradigms that imply
that organizations are instruments of social good. Without doubt, the
potential social utility of criminal justice organizations is quite
important. But there is a strong possibility that insights into
social utility potential might arise from more frequent and
systematic investigation of other aspects of organizational behavior.
(Duffee, 1989)
Recent
literature is full of discussions about the requirements to bring
together the disparate criminal justice organizations under some sort
of modeled system. It is argued that if the criminal justice
organizations want to improve upon the outcome of rehabilitation and
correction services then they need to concentrate on the shortcomings
of current methodologies of providing those services rather than
focusing on the "lack of motivation" of the offenders they
treat. It is proposed that criminal justice organizations should
become "organizations without a boundary". Criminal justice
organizations should be characterized by shared common goals and
operational practices that are common to both criminal justice
organizations and correction and rehabilitation facilities. Polices
and operational procedures should be so formulated that they should
go beyond the limits of an organization, overcome bureaucratic
formalities and result in benefit of individual organizations. To
achieve these objectives, organizations must go through a major
change and design policies in a manner that the impact is felt on the
outcome of the case rather than a particular organization's
performance in handling that case or that organization's outcomes as
a whole. Once working towards the common objective, the focus is then
on the new criteria of responsiveness to the system and community
needs, flexibility (e.g., pulling tasks together to achieve greater
gains), and innovations (e.g., new, different, and creative
approaches to traditional processes). The boundary-spanning concept
involves simultaneous processing of tasks and multi-agency efforts
instead of on separate decision points for each agency. The
convergence increases flexibility and innovation by focusing on the
decision-making process instead of on specialized tasks. In the
criminal justice system, boundary-less organization allows for
multi-agency decision-making before the next decision point occurs.
The emphasis is on the process to allow the organizational structure
to mirror the way work/cases actually flow. (Cadigan, 2003)
Criminal
justice organizations usually collect data about various events from
the field of "internal security", which is further divided
in subcategories of traffic, public law and order, crime, border. The
various incidents of these subcategories fall in the area of various
criminal justice organizations. The data is collected about the
incident and those involved, and as well as about the working of the
organization collecting the data. Systems of data collection are not
standardized, theoretically and methodologically both, and still
remains decentralized to much extent. Therefore, to have a holistic
view of the situation becomes difficult at time. It becomes difficult
to know about what is happening in the field and who is doing what at
specific points in time. As there are no explicitly defined links in
the process of work (and data) through the criminal justice system,
from police, to courts and corrections, so it is difficult to assess
the ongoing processes, outputs and outcomes through time. The efforts
put in by the criminal justice organizations in collection of data
are spelled out by and large by the requirements of the constitution
and law. Coding a case record into a statistical record is a very
critical as some useful information can be omitted because of the
characteristics of the coding system which are not theoretically and
methodologically explicitly defined. But in spite of this fact, it is
possible to collect a great amount of important information but not
in a comprehensive and systematic manner. For a comprehensive
overview of the work of criminal justice organizations we need
theoretically and methodologically explicitly defined data about
events, which forms the contents of work of police and criminal
justice organizations. Data about the various procedures which were
required for investigation of an event is also needed. Besides the
narrower purposes, which are main restricted to getting the job done,
this data can be well utilized for assessment in the field of
internal security, activities of police and criminal justice
organizations. Last but not the least, in assessment of contextual
conditions and their influences on various aggregations of
events (criminality, for example) and work of police and criminal
justice organizations. (Mitar, 2004)
For
researchers in criminology statistical information is vital for
analysing trends and developments, especially when it comes to
getting an overview of what is going on in major crime areas which
show a strong tendency towards becoming more and more international.
That is why there is a clear need for information such as the United
Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice
Systems to be made available for a wider audience. It does not need
much knowledge to see how such information can be used for scheduling
the allocation of resources and for planning actions. Systems like
UNCJIN (United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network) can in
this way also serve as models for the development of regional and
national information systems. It becomes clear that not all
interesting information can be maintained solely by UNCJIN: the work
has to be shared with other United Nations as well as other
international and national organizations that can make sources
available. Just reinventing the wheel and doubling the efforts, as it
would be in a purely paper-based and diskette-oriented world, would
cause the waste of scarce resources. The web with its ability to
simply 'link' interesting information from other sources is a nearly
ideal platform for establishing this sort of co-operation. By
'linking' to each others' web sites it is also possible to create a
'virtual information network' for the user to operate in. (Coming
events, 2007)
Jail
crowding is a substantial concern for many local jurisdictions.
Although several research works have suggested a system-wide approach
to reduce crowding, relatively little is known about how top local
criminal justice officials view this issue. Using interviews and
surveys of criminal justice leaders, a study examined perspectives on
jail crowding and perceived interagency relationships. Consistent
with prior studies, the respondents agreed that jail crowding is a
problem and that the consequences of crowding extend beyond the
correctional facility. Greater discord was observed on issues of
agency responsibility for changing policies to effect reductions in
crowding. (Davis, 2004)
American
Correctional Association (ACA) surveyed a number of associations, to
gauge their views on issues of common concern, involved in the
criminal justice field. The results indicated those who might be
potential allies or adversaries when testifying before various
legislative bodies either in the states or in Congress. The following
organizations participated in the survey:
American Correctional Association (ACA)
National Governors Association 0NGA)
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA)
National Center for State Courts (NCSC)
National Association of Counties (NACO)
National District Attorneys Association (NDAA)
National Sheriffs Association (NSA)
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
American Bar Association (ABA)
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)
It should be noted that each of these organizations has its own
respective process and format for development and distribution of
public policies. Using ACA's public correctional policies as a point
of comparison, the survey found that there were 14 issues on which
more than one organization had a position. The initial phase of the
survey did not necessarily indicate where there is an agreement, but
did indicate common interests or concerns. These included the
following (the number in parentheses indicates the number of
organizations that have a position on a particular issue):
Juvenile justice (12)
Drugs (7)
Sentencing (6)
Victims' rights (5)
Prevention (5)
Federalism (4)
Technology (4)
Community corrections (3)
Death penalty (3)
Community policing (3)
Prison litigation (3)
Correctional industries (2)
Gangs (2)
Religious freedom (2)
The top five organizations with which ACA shared the most positions
were:
NCJA
NGA
NDAA
NSA
ABA
The
issues in common reflect legislative and congressional trends in
recent years. Juvenile justice has been a popular and controversial
topic for the past several years. Drugs, sentencing, victims' rights
and prevention all are prime topics for debate. It is interesting
that the topic of federalism was addressed by a number of
organizations. This reflects the growing trend toward federalizing
the criminal justice system. Currently, ACA does not have a public
correctional policy on this issue. The association's policies are the
basis of our legislative position statements. One of the chief
objectives of ACA's legislative affairs program is to work with other
organizations to find areas of agreement and common ground. ACA has
taken a leadership role in this effort. (Turpin, 1998)
References
Cadigan,
T., & Pelissier, B. (2003, September). Moving Towards a Federal
Criminal Justice System. Federal Probation, 67(2), 61.
Retrieved April 9, 2009, from MasterFILE Premier database.
Coming
Events / Prochains Événements (Published in the
language submitted / Publiés dans le langage soumis). (2007,
April). Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice,
Retrieved April 9, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database.
Davis,
R., Applegate, B., Otto, C., Surette, R., & McCarthy, B. (2004,
July). Roles and Responsibilities: Analyzing Local Leaders' Views on
Jail Crowding From a Systems Perspective. Crime & Delinquency,
50(3), 458-482. Retrieved April 9, 2009,
doi:10.1177/0011128704263983
Duffee,
D. (1989, May). INTRODUCTION.. Journal of Research in Crime &
Delinquency, 26(2), 107-115. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from Health
Source: Nursing/Academic Edition database.
Lynch,
J. P. (2008). Criminolgy. (2009). Redmong, WA, United States of
Americ: Microsoft Corporation.
Mitar,
M., (2004, December). Data Quality as a Challenge to Modern
Policing and Criminal Justice.
Turpin,
J. (1998, October). Where do criminal justice organizations stand on
critical correctional issues?. Corrections Today, 60(6),
30. Retrieved April 9, 2009, from MasterFILE Premier database.
No comments:
Post a Comment