Words: 1808
Criminal Justice Authority Evaluation Lori Bell CJA/550 October 31, 2011 Brenda Ward Civilian oversight of law enforcement is a vital element of the democratic society. Effective civilian oversight of police is crucial to guarantee that the police use its power of authority in a way that exhibits respect for the law and individual rights and freedoms. The committee’s responsibility is to maintain a balance between police independence and to complete investigations and maintain order without undue political influence, or influence from any other source while remaining accountable to the public.
The belief that civilians do not understand what a police officer faces on a daily basis becomes the crux of most complaints made by police officers when it comes to the forming of a civilian oversight committee. Police believe that until a person walks a beat in an officer’s shoes, or accompanies an officer on a dangerous call-out, that a civilian cannot adequately pass judgment on an officer’s discretionary choice during said call-out Discretionary authority Discretionary authority: The right to choose what action to take; permission to act.
Each facet of the criminal justice system has its own level of discretionary authority. Whether or not each facet wants to acknowledge it, each facet eventually answers to the public. From a police officer writing a ticket or deciding to pursue a fleeing suspect to the probation/parole officer filing a violation of probation or parole – and the organizations in between – each facet must adhere to the policy and procedures for its own agency. Police High-speed pursuits draw the attention of just about everybody. Not much is more exhilarating than watching the police chase down and arrest the criminals.
However, this exhilaration does not come without a price tag. Whereas most pursuits end without damage, some pursuits end in severe injuries and fatalities not only to the pursued lawbreaker but also to police officers and members of the public also. With these injuries and deaths arise lawsuits against the police and governmental bodies. Occasionally, the complainant will be the lawbreaker who was trying to escape, and his assertion will be that the police should have let him go rather than pursue him. Frequently, the complainant will be a pedestrian or a third-party driver who became a victim in the pursuit.
This person’s assertion will be that the police should not have started the pursuit or that the police neglectfully piloted the pursuit. A debate exists relating to when police should conduct high-speed pursuits. Some believe that police should use their discretion and should not avoid a pursuit because of risk to the public. The opposite view is that by pursuing a lawbreaker, the police heighten the risk of danger to the public. For example, prior to a police chase, there is a drunk driver on the road. Once the chase begins, there is a drunk driver driving his vehicle at a high rate of speed.
It is maintained that many people who flee from police are accused of a more serious offense (e. g. kidnaping, trafficking, etc. ) than the offense of which the police originally suspected the person. Prosecuting attorney In the United States, the prosecutor is perhaps the most essential decision-maker in the criminal justice procedure. The push to initiate an investigation typically stems from an accuser, and it is usually the law enforcement agency that runs the majority of investigations; but the decisions to cite a person, what to cite a person with, and what sentences ultimately to carry out are significantly swayed by the prosecutor.
Numerous features of the United States criminal justice system are reliant on prosecutors’ discretion. Without it, discriminating implementation of criminal laws and deviation of borderline criminals from the criminal process would be difficult, and plea bargaining could disappear. To request the elimination or a fundamental restriction of prosecutorial discretion would not be realistic, and it would furthermore not be appropriate to have an inflexible criminal justice system without the prosecutor’s office as a sieve for those cases technically illegal but for a number of explanations, do not call for verdict and penalty.
The prosecutor’s political obligation, which becomes effective only if the prosecutor pursues reelection, thus inclines to disguise the necessity for more direct boundaries on his discretionary authorities as well as for controls upon choices the prosecutor and his subordinates make in different cases. Foreign legal organizations have established different tools in that regard. In some countries, statutes overtly limit prosecutors’ discretionary power, and in several legal organizations, the prosecutor is subject to many forms of control by courts, victims, or private citizens.
Court The assignment of judging had been defined as the art of making discrete selections among conflicting options of action. Charged with the instruction to govern justice equitably and justifiably, judges have discretion to pursue any lawful option. In both criminal and civil cases, the implementation of discretion is a fundamental judicial role. For example, under certain situations a judge hearing a motion for a mistrial could have the discretion to accept or to deny the motion.
In other instances, there may be a variety of existing options of action from which to choose: for instance, upon a motion to exclude, as collective, the testimony of four witnesses, the judge could have discretion to omit none, one, two, three, or four of them. The discretion in a given instance could be a task of two factors, such as when a sentencing choice includes several mixtures of prison sentences and probationary or parole periods. Parole and probation Discretionary parole is the parole board’s use discretionary authority to release prisoners based on a legal or administrative determination of eligibility.
Prisoners are released conditionally. They are subject to all of the conditions and terms of parole or community supervision for the entire period that their supervision lasts. These terms can be set by either the parole board or the parole officer, or both. In New Hampshire, probation is a sentence set by a judge in lieu of a prison sentence. One can also receive a jail sentence as well as probation. As is with parolees, probationers’ condition can be set by the court, the probationer officer, or both.
The probation and parole officer has the discretionary authority to decide when an offender’s action warrant the filing of a violation, an immediate arrest for the infraction, or an alternative sanction being put into place. What may work for one offender may not be enough of a deterrent for another offender. These officers must weigh the options available to them and decide which course of action would best benefit the offender. At times, the decisions in any facet of the criminal justice system do not come without a complaint. Complaints
People wishing to complain about the practices or events that have occurred during the process have a number of options available to them. In New Hampshire, people wishing to file a complaint against a probation or parole officer must fill out a grievance form. This form is reviewed going up the chain of command until it reaches the Commissioner of Corrections. For other facets of law enforcement, civilian oversight committees are put into place to ensure that the events that have taken place that are being brought into question have been handled according to the various policies and procedures according to the organization under scrutiny.
Civilian oversight Civilian oversight of law enforcement has become increasingly predominant in the United States. Police oversight agencies are the watchdog organizations designed to ensure that the police are operating with integrity (Lewis ; Prenzler, 1999). However, there is a need to ensure that the citizen oversight bodies themselves are performing adequately, and are making progress toward their complex and varied goals and desired outcomes (Prenzler ; Lewis, 2007; Walker, 2006a).
The question of whether civilian oversight over law enforcement is effective at its various goals and objectives has never been systematically examined within the United States (Brereton, 2000; Walker, 1997). In jurisdictions where the police have been amenable to voluntary reform efforts, civilian oversight committees may not be needed. The privilege of the police to self-regulate comes with an obligation to open the agency’s records to responsible public representatives. If the obligation is not met, the privilege is no longer merited.
Many open-minded law enforcement administrators and police officers see citizen review as an imperative part of community policing and police transparency and answerability. Balancing the requirements of public accountability and police independence and providing an interface between the police and elected officials is of the utmost importance. Police commissioners and civilian oversight committees afford an important link between the community and the police. Public view Citizens are aware of their obligation to become actively involved in stopping crime – in concert with the police and law enforcement officials.
The relationship of citizens with the police transpires at many levels and in several forms, one aspect of which is civilian oversight committee. Citizens can influence the internal operations of police forces by encouraging change in areas that used to be left to the discretion of the police. They can mandate improvement in effective enlistment of new employees, types and levels of training and continuing education, clearer policy and procedures, more suitable disciplinary codes, and the preservation of a strong police sub-culture. Conclusion
Whereas various law enforcement establishments prefer to police their own force, the fact remains that not all law enforcement agencies have the ability to remain unbiased in their investigations. A civilian oversight committee allows for the unbiased decisions that need to be made in high profile cases. That the civilians making up the committee have no police experience does not equate to those civilians being unqualified to render important decisions necessary in performing their duties for the committee. References Brereton, D. (2000). Evaluating the performance of external oversight bodies.
In A. J. Goldsmith & C. Lewis (Eds. ), Civilian Oversight of Policing: Governance, Democracy and Human Rights (pp. pp. 105-124). Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. http://avenue-s. us/resources/judicial%20discretion%20to%20condition. pdf http://law. jrank. org/pages/1857/Prosecution-Comparative-Aspects. html https://www. ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/nij/178259. pdf Lewis, C. , & Prenzler, T. (1999). Civilian oversight of police in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology: Trends & Issues in crime and criminal justice, 141(December 1999), pp1-6.
Prenzler, T. , & Lewis, C. (2007). Police Oversight Agencies: Measuring Effectiveness. In B. Head, C. Connors & A. Brown (Eds. ), Promoting Integrity: Evaluating and Improving Public Integrity Institutions. London: Ashgate. Walker, S. (1997). Complaints against the police: A focus group study of citizen perceptions, goals and expectations. Criminal Justice Review, 22(2), pp. 207-226. Walker, S. (2006a). Alternative models of citizen oversight. In J. C. Perino (Ed. ), Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association Publishing.