Best writers. Best papers. Let professionals take care of your academic papers

Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon "FIRST15"
ORDER NOW

Week 6 -george wajackoyah

Respond by Day 5 to two colleagues whose views on stakeholders differed from yours.

Task(s): The task raises several issues regarding the role played by stakeholders in criminal justice. (i): Three types of planning committees that are important for criminal justice organizations to open up stakeholders. (ii) Describing the purposes of each, (iii) the types of stakeholders most likely to make the committees successful, (iv) expectations, and (v) the importance of diversity among stakeholders on the planning committees.

(i) Three types of planning committees that are important for criminal justice organizations to open up stakeholders

The three types of planning committees that are important for criminal justice are (i) Management & Policy, (ii) Communication, and (iii) Intelligence.

ii) Describing the purposes of each.

(a) Management & Policy Committee.

Stakeholder management is essentially stakeholder relationship management as it is the relationship and not the actual stakeholder groups that are managed Splitzeck et al. (2011). The future of policing in America is a partnership, technology and intelligence-led policing. Law enforcement is about detection and crime reduction (O’Neal, 2012). Marx Weber (1947) conceptualizes charismatic leadership as the followers’ belief that their leader has extraordinary qualities. House (1976) identified indicators of charismatic leadership, including follower perceptions and leader traits and behaviors. Charismatic leaders are self-confident and seek power. They can manage their image, clear visions, communicate high expectations, and instill confidence in followers (De Vries et al., 1999).

Stakeholder in criminal justice includes people with a legitimate interest in usually policing the community and other participants. Law enforcement officers enforce government regulations, and public interest is an overriding guideline. Management requires well-coordinated structures guided by participatory leadership and partnership (Supra).

Partnership requires technology, communication, innovation, and intelligence. “Working smarter and not harder” assists any organization to achieve its objectives (O’Neal, 2012). The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) promulgated guidelines (Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases) to improve the practice of courts in child abuse and neglect cases.

In planning and implementing one family, one judge docketing, jurisdictions must take into account logistical considerations that can impact the program feasibility, acceptance, and success. These include fiscal resources, local regulations, staffing, and workplace structures.

Partners with law enforcement agencies include Federal, State, County municipals, tribal agencies, religious groups, gang leaders, Highway safety, School Safety, health officers and other professionals. Each plays a vital role in the management of criminal justice. Developing partnership among such requires bringing together those who can contribute and benefit yet often may be competing or have other priorities (Supra).

Included in this team are Human resource, people with leadership skills, financial consultants, professionals and law enforcement officers.

(ii) Communications Committee:

The committee plays a more significant role in the provision of technical expertise and Information technology. Collecting information, processing, storage, and dissemination is one of the most critical aspects. The committee should embrace the satisfactory stakeholders’ model adopted by Baltimore City on one Family, One Judge. This model follows the National Council of Juvenile, and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) promulgated guidelines (Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases) to improve the practice of courts in child abuse and neglect cases. Among the practices recommended by the Resource Guidelines was one family, one judge model, in which one judicial officer oversees the entire juvenile dependency case from start to finish (NCJFCJ,

Communication hinges on how well we understand others and how well they can understand us (O’Neal, 2012). “Technology… has taken the process of law enforcement information sharing to a whole new level creating now a ‘Digital Coffee Shop’ to exchange information (Supra). Communication and information sharing assists law enforcement officers target both criminals across such as well as similar crimes occurring in other jurisdictions (Supra). Digital Coffee shop enables officers to have faster access to information. Information leads to knowledge and knowledge to wisdom. The committee should design policies and procedures aimed at gathering and disseminating content and context to be processed. Reaching out to crime analysts who can digest the vast amount of information collected through human resources, electronic and imagery (O’Neal, 2012).

The Committee should embrace good relationships among stakeholders and agencies. Looking out at the stakeholder’s model to help facilitate implementation of model court practices such as one family, one judge docketing

Most stakeholders are satisfied with the one family, one judge docketing as implemented in Baltimore City and believe that it has improved efficiency and decision ‐ making. In planning and implementing one family, one judge docketing, jurisdictions must take into account logistical considerations that can impact the program feasibility, acceptance, and success. These include fiscal resources, local regulations, staffing, and workplace structures. Communication and good relationships among stakeholders and agencies can help facilitate implementation of model court practices such as one family, one judge docketing. Stakeholders voiced mixed concerns regarding the fairness of one family, one judge. Some stakeholders believed that the one family, one judge model potentially or exacerbated judicial bias; whereas others believed that the model reduced judicial bias. Understanding these concerns is important in directing future research and practice (Reno, 1995).

(iii) Intelligence Committee.

The intelligence committee should comprise of stakeholders with expertise knowledgeable to understand past behaviors and forecast likely, future behaviors (O’Neal, 2012). Intelligence may lead the police to harness the power of the information that can be used by an executive or law enforcement officer in recommending causes of action. Intelligence collection provides law enforcement officers with trends, targeted approach to crime control, reliable methods targeting crime prevention and enabling the identification of persisting and developing problems (Supra).

The committee must design policy guidelines to wit the role of stakeholders and law enforcement officers to ensure that civil liberties are protected.

(iv) what is expected of them?

One would question the role of stakeholders in criminal justice by asking whether it is ‘rhetoric’ or ‘restoration’ (Braddock, 2011). Unlike the Baltimore city approach as stated above, the idea of stakeholders is restorative. The concept of introducing victim-offender mediation within the cautioning process is the reconciliation of offenders and victims following conditional caution (supra).

(v) the importance of diversity among stakeholders on the planning committees.

Diversity plays a leading role as each expert on the planning committee contributes evidence of his professional aptitude. Strong leadership and a change in collaborative relationships, including representation of a broad range of stakeholders and the commitment signaled by the participation of high-level agency representatives (Tanner, 2009) improves performance (Supra). Baltimore City’s collaborative model court team includes a professor of social work from a local university, which implemented Baltimore City’s one master, one family practice ideal for evaluation.

In conclusion, more research collaboration is required to evaluate stakeholders’ contribution to criminal justice.

References:

Braddock, R. A. (2011). Rhetoric or restoration? A study into the restorative potential of the conditional cautioning scheme. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 13(3), 195–210.

Shdaimah, C. S., & Wiechelt, S. A. (2012). Converging on empathy: Perspectives on Baltimore city’s specialized prostitution diversion program. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(2), 156–173.

Wilson, J. A., & Chapman, G. (2006). Finding common ground: Building consensus among criminal justice stakeholders. Corrections Compendium, 31(4), 7–10.

O’Neal, J. (2012). Embracing the digital coffee pot. In D. R. C. McCullough & D. L. Spence (Eds.), American policing in 2022: Essays on the future of a profession (pp. 67–70).

Oregon.gov. (n.d.). Statutory powers and duties. Criminal Justice Commission.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *