Issue with the Justice System
Law Enforcement
Introduction
The terms law enforcement pertains to a government agency that assumes the responsibility of maintaining public order including public safety and enforcement of the law. There are several branches of law enforcement both local and federal that assume the said responsibility. The local police department, the FBI, Sherriff’s department, special jurisdiction police, and among others are inclusive of the term law enforcement because their key function involves, detection, deterrence, and apprehension of criminal activities. The discussion will highlight the key functions and purpose of law enforcement and the current issues facing this branch of the criminal justice system. Furthermore, the discussion will also demonstrate law enforcement’s inter correlation with other agencies in terms of addressing issues and sharing resources in order to create a collaborative effort and finding optimal solutions.
Current Issues
Several issues involving law enforcement has been a subject of scrutiny both by the public and the Civil Right movement. One of the longstanding issues involving the law enforcement is its capacity to share and exchange information with other agencies in solving crimes. Following the aftermath of terrorism attacks targeting the United States; the call for information sharing between the law enforcement and U.S. Intelligence community was intensified. Crimes that can potentially compromise the safety and security of the general public often takes time to get resolved because of the limitations of access to information between law enforcement agencies (AFCEA Intelligence Committee, 2010). The lack of inter-agency information sharing was attributed to the decline in America’s crime clearance rate, which fell dramatically in the past 50 years from 90% in 1965 to 64% as of 2012 (The Economist, 2012).
The decline in crime clearance rate and the advent of multiple terrorism attacks led the Congress to ratify the current policies on information and intelligence sharing by introducing Inter alia, which paved the way for the creation of Information Sharing Environment (ISE) as mandated by the IRTPA (AFCEA Intelligence Committee, 2010). Given the changes in policies, standards, and procedures in information sharing, improvements in intelligence practices still needs further attention. This is because despite the enacted policies, implemented technological infrastructure, and revised security clearance protocols, considerable number of unresolved cases still remains a problem that law enforcement is facing. For instance, about 200,000 murder cases has been left unresolved since 1960 and that bring the law enforcement performance rating down to 64.1% (Sterbenz, 2015). One of the reasons attributed to this problem is the law enforcement’s shifted focus on prevention instead of solving past crimes. Due to the perceived low performance rating of law enforcement in solving crimes, the proposition for change is to increase cooperation between law enforcement agencies in sharing information that are critical to resolving crimes.
Purpose and Function
The purpose of the law enforcement agency is to ensure public safety and security by preventing, deterring, apprehending criminal activities and bringing the perpetrators to face justice. However, the lack of inter-agency information and intelligence sharing leads to a decline in law enforcement performance in crime resolution. In this regard, the law enforcement agency is looking forward to a collaborative effort in ascertaining the proliferation of intelligence information by establishing a sharing network that will enable a more effective information exchange. Current practices in intelligence sharing enabled several methods of exchange such as the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM), which provides a subset of sharing infrastructure known as the Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program Exchange Specifications (LEXS). The other source of information is provided by the FB, which is the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) (ISE, N.D).
On the other hand, the Regional Information Sharing Systems sponsored by the Department of Justice have also provided support for law enforcement in information and intelligence gathering. However, not all of the aforementioned approaches provide general access to majority of law enforcers because of the existing inter-agency protocols and access security clearance policies. The limitations create a setback for the law enforcement agencies such as local police investigators in determining crime causation, finding evidence, and locating potential suspects. This is the reason that ease of access and change in protocols should be implemented to enable intelligence information more available to the law enforcement agencies. It is also the reason that new methods of sharing should be implemented encompassing a multilateral, multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency, and multi-disciplinary approach to information exchange should be implemented. The function of the proposed intelligence sharing practice is to ensure the availability of information for the local law enforcement agencies in addressing crimes and gain greater access to available data that would provide law enforcement a factual basis for evidence-based law enforcement practices.
Inter correlation
Law enforcement is inter-correlated to the other components of the criminal justice system such the Courts and the Correctional system. Primarily, the police sector is the enforcing arm of the justice system while the Courts act as the administrators of justice and the correctional system functions as the implementing body of crime punishment. This inter-correlation creates and interdependence between the three components of the criminal justice system in which the poor performance of one could result to inefficiencies of the other. This is why the function of the law enforcement in solving crimes through improved multilateral intelligence exchange should be implemented. Collaborative efforts and partnership between law enforcement agencies in establishing a multilateral intelligence exchange can significantly contribute in improving the quality of service of the criminal justice system as a whole.
According to Brooks (2011), effectively and efficiently developing a criminal intelligence sharing approach should involve coordination, collaboration, and institutionalization among agencies regardless of jurisdiction and size. This means that exchanging intelligence between law enforcement agencies should not be based on jurisdictional boundaries and should be beyond internal policies. Furthermore, a more open access to crime intelligence can create a chain of positive effect towards the other sectors of the criminal justice system. For example, a more extensive crime investigation aided with a immense amount of shared intelligence will provide the Court with more substantial evidence to decide a conviction or an acquittal. Not all individuals brought in Court are considered criminals unless proven guilty. However, proving guilt requires truthful and lawful evidence, which can be obtained through shared intelligence. For instance, a person accused of drug trafficking, but innocent of the crime can be sentenced to a maximum of life imprisonment, unless law enforcement was able to acquire more information from other agencies proving otherwise.
Conclusion
Law enforcement is a significant component of the criminal justice system and its perceived inefficiencies in multilateral intelligence sharing contribute to its failure in addressing criminality. However, multilateral information sharing practices would not only improve crime prevention approach, but would also benefit other sectors of the criminal justice system.
Private Security
Introduction
Current Issues
Among the issues attributed to the private security sector is the lack of training and inadequacies thereof. Considering the prevalence of less serious crimes committed within the private business space to more devastating attacks witnessed during 9/11, the private security sector is faced with a need for uniformity and standardized approach to training and certification in order for them to fully understand the extent of their responsibility in protecting lives and properties. For example, lack of oversight and training was found to be the cause of the incident involving a mall security guard shooting down a 20-year old mall employee in Coral Ridge Mall in Coralville on June 12, 2015 (Jordan, 2015). The incident led the public to believe that private security agencies are not effectively administering proper training to their security officers.
Secondly, the current training and certification policies are inefficient in assuring a thorough background checking, and competency assessment of security officers before they are deployed to their respective posts (Nalla, 2014). This problem creates a two-fold effect, which is a failure in augmenting security practices that optimizes the presence of a secured and safety environment for the people within the jurisdiction and failure to protect themselves from crime while on duty. According to the report by an international security-police organization Pivate Officer international, in 2011 a total of 37,000 assaults against a private security were recorded. In addition, it was estimated that 12-20% of the reported assaults have resulted to death and 13,700 injuries (Pi Feed Staff, 2012). The FBI statistics also revealed that an estimated 112 private security officers were killed while on duty every year as compared to 72 police officers killed while on duty during the same period (FBI, 2013). Given the fact that private security are considered as the first respondents in the event of a crime, their skills and competency to effectively perform their duty to protect the contracted jurisdiction and their own safety should be addressed by standard and structured training (Sparrow, 2014).
Purpose and Function
Despite the fact that private security officers perform police-like function, their actions are considerably carried out on behalf of the organization or individuals that contracted their service. This means that the orders to act comes from the contracting party and does not necessarily involve public interest. However, it is also important to consider that the contracting party regardless of their private statute is also part of the public sphere; hence, the duty of the private security is by part rendered for safety of the contracting individual public. Given this assumption of private security function, their skills should also demonstrate a level of competency that is close to police standards if not totally similar. For one, standardization of private security training would improve oversight, attitude and responsiveness to threats in a more cohesive manner. Although, private security protects the interest of mostly the private sector, their scope of responsibility encompasses significance in terms of securing the economic interest of the country.
This is because private security officers protect infrastructure, properties, institutions, and important industries and facilities that have a key role in the advancement of the country’s socio-economic development (Strom et al., 2010). Given that the private security sector has several underlying role in protecting both the public and private sector’s essential assets, their training is crucial in ascertaining the deterrence of criminal activities within their contracted jurisdiction. The function of the standardized training and certification in addition to background checking protocols is to promote improved security and safety practices among security officers. However, the perceive problem of standardization is exacerbated by the lack of access of security agencies to training materials and development resources that are often made available only to law enforcement (Walker, 2008). This is also the reason that the criminal justice system should be more supportive of the private security sector in terms of adapting professional practices that would render improvement of security officers’ capabilities.
Inter correlation
Since the private security sector is considered at the forefront of the security and safety augmentation within there contracted jurisdiction, their role in apprehension and response to criminal activities makes their function inter-correlated with law enforcement. For instance, in the event that a private institution is threatened by criminal activities or unlawful circumstances arises within an organization, it is the job of the private security to reach out to law enforcement to take actions as prescribed by the law. The relationship between the law enforcement and private security can be viewed as a cooperative approach to public safety and crime prevention. Private security can take actions to apprehend criminals, but only within its contracted jurisdiction. However, taking further actions against the apprehended criminals will require police power and this is where private security turns over the jurisdiction of the criminal to the state through the law enforcers.
Conclusion
The private security is functional force of law enforcement that operates within a private jurisdiction and takes actions to secure the safety and security of their contracting employers. However, the lack of standardized training, certification, and background checking protocols creates a limitation on skills and competencies of the private security officers in terms of oversight and critical judgment of situations where criminal activities are occurring.
References
AFCEA Intelligence Committee,. (2010). Intelligence community acquisition and development. Fairfax, VA: AFCEA. Retrieved from http://www.afcea.org/mission/intel/documents/AFCEA_INSA-Whitepaper2010.pdf
Brooks, R. (2011). Improving Criminal Intelligence Sharing: How the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council Supports Law Enforcement and Homeland Security. The Police Chief, (78), 34-38. Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=2310&issue_id=22011
FBI,. (2013). Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted 2011. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/officers-feloniously-killed/officers-feloniously-killed
ISE,. Law Enforcement Information Sharing | ISE. Ise.gov. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from https://www.ise.gov/law-enforcement-information-sharing
Jordan, E. (2015). Mall shooting draws attention to lack of training, oversight for private security industry | The Gazette. The Gazette. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/mall-shooting-draws-attention-to-lack-of-training-oversight-for-private-security-industry-20150621
Nalla, M. (2014). Security guard industry lacks standards, training. MSUToday. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2014/security-guard-industry-lacks-standards-training/
PI Feeds Staff,. (2012). Private Security Officer Death Count 2012. PIFeed. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from http://pifeed.com/post/private-security-officer-death-count-2012/
Sparrow, M. (2014). Managing the Boundary Between Public and Private Policing. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247182.pdf
Sterbenz, C. (2015). America's cops aren't solving as many murders — here are some theories about why. Business Insider. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-do-so-many-murders-go-unsolved-2015-3
Strom, K., Berzofsky, M., Shook-Sa, B., Barrick, K., Daye, C., Horstmann, N., & Kinsey, S. (2010).The Private Security Industry: A Review of the Definitions, Available Data Sources, and Paths Moving Forward. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/232781.pdf
The Economist. (2015). Getting away with murder. The Economist. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21656725-police-fail-make-arrest-more-third-nations-killings-getting-away
Walker, D. (2008). The Changing Role of Private Security. SecurityInfoWatch.com. Retrieved 30 June 2016, from http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/10517289/the-changing-role-of-private-security
