Poor Grammar Criminal Justice System the Criminal

Poor Grammar Criminal Justice System The criminal justice system may be seen as an overpowering, puzzling as well as threatening for all those who do not work according to the system on normal basis. Thus, one can easily imagine the response of a criminal since he or she struggle to turn the very inflicting "criminal" justice system (ncvc, 1998). There are many individuals that may include victims along with their advocates of having believed that the justice system concentrate on the criminal to the loss or damage of the victim (ncvc, 1998).

However, after the passage of the Wisconsin Victims' Bill of Rights in 1980, the victim advocates have supported the passage of victims' rights legislation to have balance justice system (ncvc, 1998). Thus now to some extent, all states have passed laws in order to protect the rights as well as interests of crime victims. However, the capacity and level of these provisions vary to a great extent from every state to state (ncvc, 1998). For instance, in few nations, these rights have been extensive to also help victims of juvenile criminals.

There are around twenty-nine states that have passed constitutional amendments that guarantee the rights of crime victims within that particular state (ncvc, 1998). Components of the Criminal Justice System The justice system is divided into four major components: Law enforcement; Prosecution; Judiciary; and Corrections. Theses comprise of both adult and juvenile institutions, along with trial and parole (community corrections). Even though having different reasons, tasks and legal duties, these four components of the criminal justice system turns to be unsuccessful if they do not efficiently work together (Crime and Violence).

Differentiating Between Consensus & Conflict Models of Criminal Justice System The difference between the consensus and conflict theory of the criminal justice system can be observed in the manner that the consensus theory compete social order in a society of democracy since the neutral state function to guard itself from threatening actions. Here, one of the state's main concerns is to back up the moral viewpoints by authorizing those behaviors that may infringe or disturb criminal laws that most probably based on universally established or customary values (Chambliss, 1976:3-5).

Therefore, in this perspective, the police will take into custody only those who are alleged of actually committing acts that break criminal laws (Chambliss, 1976:3-5). Additionally, those actions that jeopardize or threaten either the value system, eradicate, damage or debilitate functioning members of society will equally be sanctioned (Tittle, 1994:25). While on the other hand, the conflict theory claim that social order is maintained by means of a value burdened state that work for the advantage of the governing class at the expense of subordinates.

Therefore, to continue their honored status and entry to power and resources, these leaders use oppressive social control on subordinates (Tolnay and Beck, 1992). Hypothetically, leaders restrain and force subordinates since these subordinates are supposed to be threatening in their actual or may be anticipated effort to obtain the political control, economic victory, social status as well as resources of the ruling class (Blalock, 1967; Chambliss, 1976:5-7). Thus, law enforcement agents may apply unrestricted justice on minorities as the occurrence of minority groups increase rulers' insight of threat and fear of crime.

Furthermore, the relationships between legal agents such as police officers and minorities are harsh since police nature support the well-being of the rulers (Chambliss and Seidman, 1971:53).Thus, the decisions of police in order to arrest minorities can be independent of genuine conduct and more reliant upon their subordinate group status such as favoritism based on group individuality (Chambliss and Seidman, 1971:53). Identification of Different Perspectives of Individual Rights & Public-Order Advocates The individual rights advocates are those who search to protect individual freedoms within the process of criminal justice.

For example, legalize marijuana, ACLU, Anti-death penalty groups, NAACP. While on the other hand public-order advocates are those who consider under particular circumstances involving the safety of public, the society interests and take priority over individual rights. For example, tougher penalties, roadblock searches, three strikes etc.

Community Policing Impact on Crime According to the DOJ definition: Community policing is a policing philosophy designed to reduce crime and disorder in communities by fostering trust, respect, and collaboration between police officers and citizens (Jones; 2002)." The impact of these polices on crime can be seen where the policing leaders, experts along with government agencies and community leaders were almost unanimous and hardly have focused teams, or targeted toward eliminating particular activities.

These are considered to be the most effectual means in order to combat violence and homicides in the community (Jones, 2002). These policies however, include severe or high-impact targeting of gang areas and hot spots etc. (Jones; 2002). Works Cited Overview of the Criminal Justice System (1998).