Structures of Criminal Justice - Research Paper Example

Criminal justice is the system of practices and arrangements distinct of local and national governments which are aimed at maintaining social order, preventing crime and sanctioning the law perpetrators through penalties. However, it is important to note that even after the individual perpetrators have gone against the law, the government ensures that these people still have access to their rights such a the right to an attorney and a right to a fair trial. If a conviction is made, then the individual is sent to a correctional facility which range from jails, prisons, rehabilitation centers, and probation arrangements among others. More often than not, the use of corrections centers is aimed at isolating the perpetrators for some time while they undergo rehabilitation depending on the severity of the crime committed. However, there are issues of capital punishment; where people are sentenced to death usually as a result of committing murder in the first degree i.e. the culprit committed premeditated murder and the sentence is often life sentence or a death sentence depending on the country in question. In such a situation, the handing of such a ruling is meant to send an unequivocal message to the rest of the society of the kind of punishment they could get if they committed similar crimes thereby deterring them from trying to commit any similar crimes (Ogalthorpe et al, 2006). This paper seeks to highlight the general correctional profile of Canada. The critique is set to establish the justification of the presence of correctional facilities, what type of correctional facilities do exist, who frequents these kinds of correctional facilities and for what reasons and for how long. Further, the paper shall highlight the policies that support the presence of these correctional facilities and what policies require reform as far as Canada is concerned. Introduction Correctional facilities do not exist in isolation but come into existence because they are enabled by the presence of a codified law against which crime is defined. Absence of law means there would be no crime and if there is no crime then there are no correctional facilities of any kind. The aims of a codified law vary from state to state. There are two types of laws: civil law and criminal law. Criminal law determines the general criminal justice of a given country. In civil law, individual citizens get to settle their differences in court where one is the plaintiff and the other the accused. Prosecution is therefore done by one party as the other party awaits ruling. However, this is not the case for criminal law. As mentioned earlier, criminal law sets the pace for criminal justice. This law defines crime and it is the responsibility of the government to prosecute or convict the perpetrators of the law. The question that remains is what is the aim of criminal justice in a country? The aims vary from one country to another. For instance, in Canada, the aim of criminal justice is to strike a balance between the objectives of crime prevention and control and those of justice. Justice in this case may be seen in form of equity, fairness and protection of the individual rights enshrined in the constitution. In US, criminal justice finds origin in the popular 1967 Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. This commission submitted a report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, which offered roughly over 200 recommendations in a bid to establish a comprehensive system to define, prevent and mitigate crime. It should be noted that some of these recommendations found their way into the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 because of their relevance as far as crime prevention and control is concerned. Criminal justice has since been seen as a mechanism used by government to litigate perpetrators of the law whose actions are detrimental to the wellbeing of the society as a whole. Actually, criminal justice everywhere in the world provides the same function, a tool to define, prevent and mitigate crime in its entirety (Pierre, 2006). Structures of Criminal Justice Criminal justice traces its origin in the oldest codified law called the Hammurabi, established in 1760 BC in ancient Mesopotamia. Since then, in the wake of time, laws have been defined by different organizations and handed down to society. In Rome, the senate voted for laws before they could be adopted. Laws can be the construct of philosophy or religion and this has been the case throughout history. It is important to note that the codified laws may be in sync or even contradict the other multifarious forms of social control such as the professional rules and ethics, cultural morals and customs of a society and religious prescriptions. Criminal justice is made up of three major parts: The law enforcement is often mainly constituted by the police and they are part of the criminal justice that the offender makes first contact with Adjudication is the main function of the courts. This is the function that defines and litigates crimes. The courts are often constituted of three parties especially during determination of cases in a bid to establish justice. These parties include the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney. Prosecutor represents the government and he is the one who brings charges against the accused. He has the responsibility of not only explaining the crime committed by the accused but also tendering evidence to prove the allegations. The defense attorney represents the accused and has the role of challenging evidence presented by the prosecution. Finally, the judge is supposed to be independent and non partisan so as to make a ruling having listened to the submissions from both sides i.e. the prosecution and the defense side. Corrections are mainly made up of jails, prisons, probation and parole regardless of the country in question. If the accused is found guilty by the courts, he/she is handed over to the correctional authorities. These authorities execute the punishment handed by the courts. Prison is the most commonly and popularly known part of corrections (Duffee et al, 1978). Crime has increase in the recent past and the table below shows the prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in some countries in the world as at 2006. Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in 2006 United States of America Russian Federation New Zealand Australia United Kingdom Turkey Canada Germany India Italy France Sweden Denmark Japan Iceland 756 611 186 126 148 91 107 95 22 104 85 82 77 62 40 Criminal Justice (corrections) in Canada Just as seen from the foregoing section on structure of the criminal justice, the government has the responsibility of prosecuting perpetrators of the law and it is its responsibility as well to not only ensure that the convicted have their constitutional rights but also that they are rehabilitated. Based on this submission, all the correctional facilities in Canada are owned, run and maintained by the federal government of Canada. The federal government is represented by an agency called Correctional Service of Canada which carries all the responsibility concerning the incarceration and rehabilitation of the convicted law perpetrators. Correctional Service of Canada was born in 1978 when Queen Elizabeth II authorized and commissioned the agency thereby presenting it with a Coat of Arms. The Commissioner of the agency is recommended for appointment by the prime Minister and he is then approved by the Order-in-Council which reports to the Minister of Public Safety Canada. Actually, the agency is held accountable to the public through parliament. The agency is part of the criminal justice and tenders its contribution to the general public safety by encouraging the general public to desist form criminal activities and rehabilitates the criminal offenders as it demonstrates its reasonable, humane and secure control of the people (Ekstedt & Griffiths, 1984). Operations of the Correctional Service of Canada are prescribed by the federal ruling enshrined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations. All the head of the agency’s directives are given within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It should be understood that the Correctional Service of Canada only handles the correctional jurisdiction of criminals who have been sentenced to more than 24 months (two years). Further, the agency is responsible for developing all the legislation to be used in governing the running of all the corrections in Canada, initiating research approaches to corrections and finally implementing the research innovations to tender justice to the community and the society at large. The agency employs the corrections expert who helps in implementation of the objectives of rehabilitation of the convicted criminals. Moreover, the agency, in conjunction with the department of justice and the federal and provincial correctional authorities, develops legislation and policy that governs the correctional department. As the agency works on development of legislation governing the conduction of correction centers in the entire Canada, momentarily the agency collaborates with organizations such as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and First Nations in a bid to develop correctional and rehabilitation policies that are cultural-specific. Canada’s Correction Policy Canada’s correction policy is implemented by the Correctional Service of Canada and the policy is supported by a number of legislation and treaties both national and international. The national legislation that supports the correction policy in Canada includes: Prisons and Reformatories Act (1985) Criminal Records Act (1985) Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) International Transfer of Offenders Act (2004) Some of the international treaties that justify the policy underlying corrections in Canada include: United Nations Charter Declaration of Human Rights Convention on the Rights of the Child International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Public Safety Canada together with the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the provision of policy advice and direction to the Correctional Service of Canada on all issues concerning corrections in Canada. Public Safety Canada is accountable to Parliament for the National Parole Board (NPB). Public Safety Canada, in consultation with some governmental departments and with NGOs develops correctional legislation and policy initiatives. For instance, it works with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to ratify polices that may enhance the handling of aboriginal offenders. It also works with other organizations such as Justice Canada CSC and NPB. (Public Safety Canada, 2008) The Correctional Service of Canada has jurisdiction over the offenders only if the offender is serving an indeterminate sentence. There are usually two types of court sentences: a determinate sentence and an indeterminate sentence. A determinate sentence has a completion date and it is court determined therefore denying the Correctional Service of Canada jurisdiction over the offender. On the other hand, an indeterminate sentence also called life sentence has no completion date and as such the Correctional Service of Canada owns jurisdiction over the offender so sentenced until he dies. An indeterminately sentenced offender has a minimum number of years before which he can apply to the National Parole Board for his conditional release. For instance, a court- imposed life sentence without parole for 25 years simply means that the offender will have to serve the 25 years after which he is now allowed to apply to National Parole Board for conditional release under supervision of a parole officer. The offenders are often classified in terms of security and as such there are maximum, medium and minimum security offenders depending on the crime committed. Upon sentencing, an offender henceforth comes under the jurisdiction of the Correctional Service of Canada. An institutional parole officer working under the Correctional Service of Canada is then supposed to compile an offender security classification report together with a correction plan for the offender. It is this correctional plan that will serve as the yardstick against which the offender will be assessed throughout the court imposed sentence time. However, for the life sentence offenders, they are supposed to spend at least two years in a maximum security correction facility in spite of the offenders behavior. An individual offender’s case is completed by parole officers working together i.e. the institutional and community parole officers. The National Parole Board has the mandate of making decisions of the conditional release of an offender under the supervision of the community parole officer. When this happens, the offender is allowed to live in the community instead of the penitentiary based on the conditional release authorized by the National Parole Board. Through such authorization of the National Parole Board, almost all the offenders in Canadian penitentiaries eventually, on conditional release, go to live in the community. Such policy on corrections is allowed because research has established that a lasting public safety can only be guaranteed by not only a safe and structured but also a gradual conditional return of offenders to the community (Ekstedt & Griffiths, 1984). There are slightly about 52 state penitentiaries in Canada which are under the operation of the federal government. The state penitentiaries hold those offenders with a court imposed sentence of two years and above. The boundary of two years and above separates the provincial and federal custody. As mentioned earlier, those offenders with two and above years sentence are incarcerated in the state penitentiaries otherwise (even in situations with two years less a day) they are held at provincial correctional institutions throughout their sentences. As at 2006 the rate of incarceration in Canada was only one seventh of that in the US. This rate stood at 107 per 100,000 people. Correctional responsibility in Canada is divided between the provincial and federal government. On issues to deal with custody of offenders, the Correctional Service of Canada, federal government agency, holds offenders with sentences of two years and above including those serving live and death penalties. On the other hand, the provincial government is responsible for two years less a day and below-sentenced offenders. National Parole Board has the mandate to make decisions on the conditional release for both federal and provincial offenders. For the provincial offenders, the board can secure the conditional releases of offenders without the provincial parole boards. Public Safety Canada harmonizes policies in the federal agencies charged with the responsibilities of prevention of crime, enforcement of law and corrections in a bid to enhance a competitively effective corrections policy in Canada for the interest of public safety. Rehabilitation in Canada’s corrections begins in the first day as seen from the professional assessments of the offenders. The offenders are analyzed and assessed by the professionals to establish any problem such as substance abuse and/or family violence among other problems such as mental disturbances. The professional assessments precede development of a Correctional Plan. It is imperative to note at this point in time that the entire Canadian corrections policy believes immensely in rehabilitation as opposed to punishment as evidenced from the development plans developed from professional assessments on the offenders. Each offender has a development plan which charts the course that the rehabilitation programs and activities will take (Canada Dept. of the Solicitor General, 1973). If the offenders or inmates follow this development plan well then this is likely to influence their possibility of achieving parole or conditional release. The programs or development plans revolve around issues such as: Live skills Violence prevention Prevention for substance abuse Family violence prevention Treatment of the Sex offenders Readiness for employment Generally, these programs or development plans aim to protect society by rehabilitation of the offenders thus enhancing their movement away from the way of life that warranted their custody (Public Safety Canada, 2007). Conclusion There is a positive note on the correction profile of Canada in that they value rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. This is probably why there are low incarceration rates in Canada as compared to US because US emphasizes punishment more than it can secure rehabilitation. However, the differences in incarceration rates may as well mean that US has a better crime fighting mechanism. Anyway, the Canada’s rehabilitation orientation through the conditional parole releases that lets the offenders live in society under supervision of community parole officers. This orientation is not only inexpensive for the state but also effective in securing maximum rehabilitation of offenders hence guaranteeing public safety. However, the aspect of release of offenders on quotas has to be reformed. This aspect has been the major point of criticism of the Canadian corrections system. In 2003, the CSC was criticized for its policies having released certain inmates on a quota system. The then Canadian Police Association Director, Scott Newark categorically stated that Canada’s Correctional Service was out of control and there was pressure on the Correctional Services to release more offenders from the penitentiaries under the Reintegration Project which he said had been set to achieve a goal of a 50/50 offender split between the community and corrections institutions. Secondly, there is need for a reform on the corrections policy based on the fact that some offenders rearrested for committing crimes while still under parole are released under parole again. This is basically ridiculous because if an offender on parole is rearrested for committing a felony then he doesn’t appreciate the value of parole and giving it back to him is nonsensical and highly irrelevant. This proves that the government is apt to reduce the cost of maintaining offenders in penitentiaries through the reintegration project at the expense of complete rehabilitation and public safety. References Public Safety Canada, (2007): Rehabilitation Starts on Day One, Retrieved on 5th March 2009 from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/abt/in-eng.aspx Ogalthorpe LG, Gostin LO & Vanchieri AP, (2009): Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners, Published by National Academies Press, pp 105-107 Pierre J, (2006): Handbook of Public Policy, Published by SAGE, pp335-337 Duffee D, Hussey F & Kramer J, (1978): Criminal Justice: Organization, Structure, and Analysis, Published by Prentice-Hall, pp243-253 Public Safety Canada, (2008): Corrections policy, Retrieved on 5th March 2009 from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/cor/corpo-eng.aspx Ekstedt J W & Griffiths C T, (1984): Corrections in Canada: Policy and Practice, Butterworths, pp75-79, 361-367 Canada Dept. of the Solicitor General, (1973): The Criminal in Canadian Society: A Perspective on Corrections, Information Canada Publishers, pp54-59 Read More