Criminal Law
Abstract
This paper will discuss the measures the government will have to take to decrease the level of robbery which will include the criminal policies that has combined both prevention and conservative and deterrence programs. The main problem is the failure to strictly implement the law and weakly defined goals. The technical methods shall also be discussed such as planning, programming and budgeting systems (PPBS), and the cost benefit analysis in order to determine the efficiency of the program. Another consideration to ensure the efficiency of the policy is to address the targeted issue. The best way to enforce a proper evaluation of the policy is to conduct measurement, analysis and recommendation by making a comparison of the before and after effects of the policy that have to be implemented, measurement of the problem and finally, to make an analysis of both the advantages and disadvantages of the policy.
Keywords: robbery, criminal policies, prevention, deterrence and programs.
There are different forms of robbery that have been committed by criminals at present including individual of street robbery, armed robbery, bank robbery and home invasion robbery. Robbery is considered as a violent crime. Simple robbery has been defined as the taking of cash, personal property, or any article of value from a person using force or fear which makes it a violent crime. This view has been supported in the work of Miller and Jentz. In the case of bank robbery, it is usually committed by armed men who use force and intimidation to accomplish the act. The crime of robbery becomes aggravated when perpetrators use dangerous weapons to effectuate the robbery. The 2012 report of the FBI shows that firearms were used in to accomplish 41.3 percent of robbery incidents. In addition, 93% of all firearms used in criminal acts were reported to have been illegally obtained and contributed to increase homicides rates. This view has been supported in the work of Cook (2002). As a result, the government has to take preventive measures to be able to decrease the level of robbery incidents in the community.
Enactment of Criminal Policies
Houston, Bridgmon and Parsons (2008) criminal policy shall refer to a combination of prevention and conservative deterrence programs. Majority of the policy-making that deals with criminal justice is pursuant to criminological theory, whether the authors of the policies are unaware of such fact or not. Some of the common causes of failed policies in criminal justice can be attributed to misinterpretation, fractional implementation, or illiteracy on criminological theories (Houston et al., 2008, p. 58). However, are some instances when there are problems that beset the implementation of policies such as when the law enforcement arrested mistaken individuals. On the other hand, there are some factors that may affect the implementation such as federalism, weakly defined goals, inability to determine the variables that may affect the implementation and opposing political ideologies (Houston et al., 2008, p. 58). Therefore, it is imperative that to have a better implementation of policies, legislators and the law enforcement agencies under the criminal justice system must be able to understand the policies by exploring the crime committed and the theories of crime.
Before a policy is created, there is a process that has to be followed such as the technical methods that have to be observed such as planning, programming and budgeting systems (PPBS) and the cost benefit analysis (Houston et al., 2008, p. 58). These are the processes that have to be done to be able to determine if the policy has reached the intended public, client or constituent. Another consideration is to ensure that the policy has addressed the targeted issue. The best way to enforce a proper evaluation of the policy is to conduct measurement, analysis and recommendation. This will entail the comparison of the before and after effects of the policy to be implemented, measurement of the problem and finally, to make an analysis of both the advantages and disadvantages of the policy on the targeted problem/issue. This view has been supported in the work of Houston et al. (2008, p. 58).
Policy Evaluation
The evaluation of criminal policies implemented by the government must take into consideration both political and scientific aspects of the problem. The goals of policy evaluation shall vary depending on the purpose such as achievement of results and the speed of delivery. It is also vital to analyze the impact of variables such as the economic, social and cultural influences on the crime. The impact analysis shall cover: 1.) the issue which is the subject matter of the investigation; 2.) the goals and objectives of the policy that addresses the issue; 3.) the causality depending on the observations made; 4.) the framework that will assess the impact of the policy; and 5). a report should be made regarding the findings (Houston et al., 2008, p.63). The last step of policy making is that after evaluation has been made, the decision-makers should be able to determine whether to preserve, amend of scrap the policy based on the feedbacks obtained from the public.
Policing as a Crime Prevention Measure
Police visibility will decrease the crime level rate including robbery, assault, homicide and homicide incidents. It is imperative that the following police measures should be implemented by taking into consideration the numbers of police, reactive arrests, random responses, random police patrols, directed patrols, proactive arrests, community-oriented policing and problem-oriented policing. This view has been supported in the work of Sherman (2002). Reports have shown that the increased number of more police officers in a city will result to a lower rate of crime incidence such as robbery. In addition, rapid response of the police to 911 calls means there should be a shorter the police travel time to respond in the assignment for the investigation of the crime scene. At the same time, random patrols are encouraged since police visibility in cities and communities is an effective means to deter crime in the future. Sherman (2011) argued that directed patrols means the precise presence of patrol patrols should focus on areas that have been identified as “hot spots” and “hot times” where criminal activities may take place. At the same time, the more reactive arrests performed by the police, will decrease the incidents of robbery in the community. In addition, proactive arrests to prevent violent crimes including robbery will lessen the level of serious violent crime (Sherman, 2011). The highlight of policing is as a preventive measure is community policing because this involved the participation of the citizens to help the police combat robbery. Furthermore, problem-oriented policing will aid in the determination of the proximate causes of the patterns to commit the crime of robbery. Based on the study conducted by Sherman (2011), the more police under the employment of the community will result to lesser number of crimes committed.
Hence, it is imperative that in order effect successful arrests, the law enforcement agencies should employ qualified police officers to prevent police corruption. This concept has been developed by Sherman by explaining that taking rewards and money shall begin on a small scale if acknowledged by other police officers. As the police shall become accustomed to this kind of culture, corruption shall result in a grander scale (Banks, 2004, p. 38). The end result is that the police officers become addicted to corruption and disregard the moral and legal implications of their actions. The level of discretion that the police officers should use will be dependent on the flexibility of the authority given to them by their departments. The theory of Sherman rests on moral grounds, which cannot be found in the theory of Feldberg (Banks, 2004). The slippery slope model shall begin with the process of the noble cause of corruption instead of taking into consideration the economic effect of corruption. The police officers sometime use force against the citizens that will expose the officers to risks of retaliation, detection and injury. This can be illustrated when police officers plant evidence in order to justify the arrest of the accused. This shall including planting of drugs to aggravate the crime committed and justify arrest. This puts the police officers on the slippery slope and becomes the way for them to employ justification of the noble cause (Banks, 2004, p. 38).
In order to carry out the objective of the agency in fighting crime such as robbery, it is imperative that the agency should consider the following skills and qualities that every police officer must possess such as proper attitude, integrity, leadership, judgment, communications, human relations, cognitive skills or knowledge and technical skills in order for him to be able to function effectively in the modern society (Ortmeier, 2006). The police officer must possess the proper attitude in order to gain community support and efficiently carry-out the objectives of the agency. Police attitude is vital to be able to solve the problems he is confronted with in a proactive manner, and not driven by selfish motivations. He must be a peace-maker and encourage cooperative relationships while on duty having a sense of values and goals (Ortmeier, 2006). He must possess a strong ethical standard in terms of trust to be able to gain public’s belief that he is fair, credible and act with restraint. The police officer must be able to exercise sensible judgment using his own discretion. It is also important to consider the characteristic and personal behavior of each officer as part of the recruitment and selection process since it may affect the informal police decision-making process as they carry out their daily functions. Since police officers encounter ethical dilemmas, they face difficult challenges which demand the use of firm discretion or judgment.
Conclusion
According to Cronkhite (2013, p. 323), criminal justice administration is the obligation to oversee the fulfillment of public mission for criminal justice agencies. Administration shall entail both management and leadership. There is a difference between the two terms since management refers to the appropriate use of resources, such as employees and equipment to effectively achieve the goals and objectives of the organization. On the other hand, leadership is defined as getting people who will cooperate to work toward a common goal by inspiring them to perform their jobs efficiently (Cronkhite (2013, p. 323). According to Allen and Sawhey (2010), there is no exact definition of leadership, but the term leadership rests on two basic characteristics which are: First, leadership involves influencing other members of the group and leadership has the ability to direct the group towards the attainment of its set goals. The art of leadership is synonymous to personality, the art of inducing compliance, the exercise of influence, a power relationship or an instrument towards the achievement of goals, integration and behavioral changes (Allen and Sawhey, 2009). Leadership is characterized by the art of inducing compliance, exercise of influence and power and a tool towards the achievement of goals (Allen and Sawhney, 2010). On the other hand, leadership behavior refers to the traits and behaviors that leaders will have to develop in order to achieve the set goals in their department. The leaders must learn how to coordinate with their people, interaction of their ideas and utilize the available resources towards the realization of the organizational objectives.
Allen and Sawhney (2010) stated that the study made by the Ohio State University and University of Michigan investigated the behaviors of leaders and specifically identified the two different dimensions of leadership behavior among law enforcement agencies. The first dimension is the consideration or concern of the leader for his people by providing the employees’ needs. The leader sees to it that there is a two-way communication between management and the employees to address all issues and improve their working relationship. The second is the concern of the leader for the task outcomes. It is referred as the initiating structure which is more focused on achieving the goals set by the organization and that the standards of performance are met. This approach is more focused on completing tasks assigned to each member of the group. Effective leadership is vital for all branches of the criminal justice system because it is an instrument that will decrease levels of crime in society. Stojkovic, Kolfas et al. (2011) argued that the leaders must be able to encourage effective communication among the subordinates and the needs of the public which in effect will reduce the levels of criminality in the community.
References
Allen, J. M. and Sawney, R., 2010. Administration and Management in Criminal Justice: A Service Quality Approach. California: SAGE.
Banks, C., 2004. Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. California: SAGE.
Callum. D. W., 2011. Leadership Within the Florida Department of Corrections. Web.
June 21, 2013
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/5ca27f87-d4c4-4a79-b01f-11cc95e24af9/McCallum-David-paper-pdf.aspx.
Cook, P. J., 2002. Gun violence: the real cost. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cronkhite, C. L., 2013. Law Enforcement and Justice Administration. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Dempsey, J.S. and Forst, L.S., 2011. Introduction to Policing. New York: Cengage.
Goodman, J. D., 2013. “Robbed at Gunpoint, Some Bronx Victims Resist”. New York Times.com. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=all.
Houston, J. G., Bridgmon, P. B. & Parsons, W.W., 1999. Criminal Justice and the Policy Process, 2nd ed. New York: University Press of America.
Miller, R.L. and Jentz, G.A., 2007. Business Law Today: The Essentials.California: Cengage.
Ortmeier, P. J., 2006. Introduction to law enforcement and criminal justice, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Sherman, L., 2002. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Souryal, S.S. and Diamond, D.L., 2001. Rhetoric of Personal Loyalty to Superiors in Criminal Justice Agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice. 29(6), pp. 543-554.
Stojkovic, S., Klofas, J. and Kalinich, D., 2011. Criminal Justice Organizations:
Administration and Management. California: Cengage.
