Comparative analysis of criminal justice systems

Criminal Justice

The Perfect Criminal Justice System

This paper will propose the perfect criminal justice system, one that focuses on networking and collaboration among policing agencies, communities, private sector entities, judicial bodies, prosecutors, legal representatives and those accused of or prosecuted for criminal activity. The perfect criminal justice system will also concentrate on rehabilitative measures for criminals incarcerated younger than age 40, as research suggests that individuals receiving counseling and support are much less likely to become repeat offenders than those who are simply punished then released, or placed on probation without appropriate intervention, education and rehabilitation (Goold, 2004).

The System Theory

The perfect criminal justice system begins with theory. The theories underlying the perfect system should rely on positive reinforcement and authentic repentance and reform among criminals (Goold, 2004). This system is modeled somewhat after the idealized Japanese policy system, where the policeman encourages during the initial point of contact, or interrogation, the offender to fell "tearful relief" as like "a child when confession of wrongdoing to his parents results in a gentle laugh and warm hug" (Goold, 2004, p.14). Typically the American criminal justice system has focused on retaliation and retribution; this opposes the system introduced here, where policemen should focus on being known for warm, supportive yet just and effective care, not simple strictness (Johnson, 2003) which is more likely to lead to less reform and increasing crime.

Reform and Community Collaboration in the Perfect System

Currently the American judicial system relies primarily on strict formalities, guilty admissions; in the perfect system this would change. Change would begin through education reform, teaching police officers that hostility is not the answer, and encourage police officers to understand the psychology behind criminal behavior, including the factors leading to increased recidivism or repeat offenses among criminals (Bouza, 1990, p. 100). Among the points taught should include the factors leading to recidivism, including: (1) poor family support structures; (2) lack of communication; (3) delinquency of parents and (4) discord and disjointed homes (Bouza, 1990, p. 100). Knowing this, police officers can then empathize and understand who it is that is more likely to repeat crimes, and make appropriate assessments of how criminal activity should be addressed within the criminal justice system.

As to the actual procedure of policing, policing typically begins with interrogation. At the point of interrogation, an officer should follow a defined set of procedures to assess the following: (1) what the situation is; (2) what the primary problem is; (3) what individuals are involved and (4) what the most likely solution is (Bouza, 1990). As supported by the constitution, even in the presence of blatant criminal activity, the role of the police officer is to serve as a neutral party holding an objective opinion until the judiciary body comes forth to decide a case when and if appropriate.

The procedural rules to be followed should involve the police and other law enforcement agencies responding to calls or criminal activities, interrogating each member involved and taking parties in for arrest if ample evidence warrants such actions (American Law & Legal, n.d.). At this point custodial institutions become involved, including jails, prisons and other authorities; guidelines should be set for processing those under arrest, ensuring they have access to proper representation and are fully informed of their rights, and the next steps in the criminal justice process (American Law & Legal, n.d.).

For those arrested engaged in non-malevolent activity, bail should be set based on predetermined policies and procedures that allow for the possibility of release for those who have not engaged in previous offenses. Prior to release on bond, offenders should be counseled again as to their rights, and provided the right to consult with a court appointed attorney who can discuss their best course of action.

Jurisdictions should have uniform policies and procedures in place guiding such actions, so that criminal activity is monitored more nationally. Additionally, within each jurisdiction a community policing "philosophy" should be adopted. This type of system would encourage police officers to work with community members to patrol communities and keep communities aware and free of crime or the threat of potential crime (Farber, 2006).

All jurisdictions in the perfect system would also utilize a security police information network or "SPIN" which is "an information sharing tool using email to connect law enforcement with the private sector" (Farber, 2006, p. 110). Using this model, the community would immediately become informed of any perceived or real threat, or systematic criminal activity that local policing agencies had encountered through shared and collaborative networks that work to inform each other of community crime and safety. Use of technology would promote public knowledge about the spread of confirmed criminal activity or patterns of behavior that might place people at risk, whether that risk involved theft, credit card scams or other behaviors (Farber, 2006).

Participation in shared networking technological programs would be required of private businesses, community agencies and policing authorities to ensure a true community policing structure is established. Communities would work to create neighborhood watch groups in response to "non-sensitive" security data that would help them better protect their community and collaborate with law enforcement agencies (Farber, 2006, p. 110).

Before a hearing is set, a judiciary authority should be appointed along with a trained criminal justice psychologist to determine what factors contributed to the criminal activity, the severity of criminal activity and whether prosecution is warranted, or whether rehabilitative measures would prove more helpful in the long-term. A meeting should be established where the offender meets with said authority and counselor, who will review the individual's criminal history, age, sex, family, environment and other factors contributing to crime. If the offender is accused of a non-violent crime, the offender should be offered the choice of making amends for his or her crime by engaging in comprehensive rehabilitation for no less than 4 weeks, and be offered the opportunity to then participate in a restrictive yet supportive probation, whereby the offender would meet with the criminal justice counselor weekly to talk about reform, lessons learned and what actions the offender is taking to become more actively involved in the community (Farber, 2006).

The goal of this program and system would be to reduce the overall levels of crime by introducing the concept of collaboration and rehabilitation. Offenders are often the victims of bad circumstance; thus in many cases, there is ample evidence suggesting that punishment and release through traditional systems does not act as an effective deterrent to criminal activity (Bouza, 1990; Johnson, 2003; Goold, 2004). Prior to prosecution, if non-violent offenders are given the opportunity for supportive counseling and community education, and if community representatives work diligently to embrace offenders and teach them how they can become participants of the community in a mutually beneficial way, there is likely to be a reversal in the rates of non-violent crimes in most areas (Goold, 2004).