Efficiency and effectiveness of the penitentiary system: assessment and planning

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valeriy Terehin ◽  
Viktor Chernyshov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
The Public ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness

The issues of setting goals, planning and forming a system of indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency of the penal system are considered. The criteria for determining the goals-tasks that are adequate to the public goals of the system are justified. Quantitative indicators corresponding to the criteria were developed, based on the contribution of the criminal justice System to reducing the socio-economic losses of society from recidivism. The contribution of the system is determined by changes in the criminal potential of convicted persons during the period of serving a sentence under a court sentence. Criminal potentials are estimated by predictive values of the aggregate of three groups of characteristics of the criminal potential of convicts, determined by the stages of the cycle of recidivism. The practical results of the use of sound methods and developed tools are based on the use of a significant amount of empirical data on the institutions of the criminal justice system and its systematic expert and statistical analysis. The monograph is a generalization and development of the works carried out by the authors during 2012-2017 in the process of preparing masters of Management for the penal system. It is intended for managers and specialists of the bodies and institutions of the Criminal Justice System, researchers, teachers of higher educational institutions who train specialists for law enforcement agencies.

Reforming the criminal justice system – an ethical leadership approach

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verl Anderson ◽  
Riki Ichiho
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Ethical Leadership ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Perspective ◽  
Conceptual Paper ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The current criminal justice system is pledged to serve and protect society while preserving the rights of those who are accused. The purpose of this paper is to explore the premise of “innocent until proven guilty” and examine whether this assumption truly prevails under the current criminal justice system, or be modified to accommodate a sliding continuum of virtuosity. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a conceptual paper which relies heavily on the current literature about criminal justice and related ethical issues. Findings The paper argues that today’s criminal justice system fails to meet the standards of the virtuous continuum and that those who oversee that system need to rethink how the system operates and is perceived by the public if they wish the criminal justice system to be perceived as just, fair, and ethically responsible. Research limitations/implications Because this paper is a conceptual paper it does not present research hypotheses. Practical implications This paper suggests that “virtue” and “ethics” must be the foundation upon which the criminal justice system is evaluated, and criminal justice must incorporate an ethical standard which is virtuous and fair to all parties and leaders who oversee that system must meet the standards suggested by the virtuous continuum. Originality/value This paper is among the first to identify the viewpoint of the virtuous perspective, moral perspective, amoral perspective, and immoral perspective in the criminal justice system.

Criminal Justice in an Era of Mass Deportation

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
State Level ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Collateral Consequence

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.

Non-criminal dispute resolution in South Africa’s criminal justice system: Proposals for reform

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 646-669
Author(s):  
Navilla Somaru ◽  
Christa Rautenbach
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
The Public ◽  
As If

The National Prosecuting Authority has issued a comprehensive document containing policy directives that are available only to prosecutors. This document makes provision for non-criminal dispute resolution mechanisms in the form of diversions and informal mediations where the offender is an adult. It seems as if a large number of less severe cases are disposed of in this way every year. The directives are not in the public domain, and their scope and application are shrouded in a cloud of secrecy. This contribution analyses the alternative dispute mechanisms of diversion and informal mediation available to prosecutors, which are referred to as non-criminal dispute resolution mechanisms, with the aim to propose ways to effect reform in this area.

“Visible” and “Invisible” Victims in the Criminal Justice System

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Armando Saponaro
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Victim Impact Statement

This chapter outlines the “conflict” and “peace-keeping” victim-oriented justice paradigms. The latter empowers the victims of crime, putting them at the center of an encounter and using interindividual mediation or collective circles to address conflict resolution. Two models are critically discussed in the conflict victim-oriented justice paradigm. The European continental “visible victim” model structures the role of the victim as a full-fledged processual party together with the public prosecutor and offender. In this model, the victim has the same rights and powers of the defendant. The “invisible victim” common law model views the victim as a trial witness, participating, for example, through a victim impact statement (in the United States) or victim personal statement (in the United Kingdom) at the sentencing stage. The visible victim conflict paradigm model enhances a victim's role and involvement in the criminal justice system, offering a solution to existing controversial and critical common law system issues.

Beyond Recidivism

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-38
Author(s):  
Elsa Y. Chen ◽  
Sophie E. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Political Will ◽  
The Public ◽  
Technological Limitations ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Integrate Data

This chapter highlights a number of flaws with current practices in the measurement of recidivism and offers suggestions for improvements in the measurement, collection, and sharing of data related to the experiences of individuals returning to society from incarceration. Problems with current measures of recidivism include lack of precision, lack of standardization, and possible bias. Multiple, precise, and uniformly defined measures should be used. Measures that focus on reengagement with the criminal justice system are insufficient to gauge a reentering individual’s progress, which is likely to be incremental, will probably involve setbacks, and inevitably spans numerous policy areas. Instead of primarily emphasizing reentering individuals’ risks of recidivating, more attention should be paid to their needs, and to information about access to reentry resources to address those needs. Data sharing between different levels of government and policy domains, between custody and community, and across the public and nonprofit sectors can improve the delivery of resources and services, reducing waste and improving lives. Concerns about privacy and confidentiality, technological limitations, insufficient funding and capacity, and lack of motivation currently impede efforts to share and integrate data. With political will, support, and resources, obstacles to data sharing can be overcome.

Reducing the Harm of Criminal Victimization: The Role of Restitution

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 450-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy Hoskins Haynes ◽  
Alison C. Cares ◽  
R. Barry Ruback
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Compensatory Mechanism ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Interpersonal Justice ◽  
Criminal Victimization ◽  
Do So

Restitution is a court-ordered payment by offenders to their victims to cover the victims’ economic losses resulting from the crime. These losses can be substantial and can harm victims and victims’ families both directly and indirectly. But most victims do not receive reparation for their injuries, both because judges do not always impose restitution and because of problems with collecting restitution payments, even if there is a court order to do so. In this article, we review the literature on restitution and suggest that this compensatory mechanism is necessary to restore victims to where they were before the crime occurred. But monetary restitution alone is not sufficient. Making victims whole requires not only financial compensation from the offender but also procedural, informational, and interpersonal justice from the criminal justice system.

On the Parole Board

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederic G. Reamer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Life Histories ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Realistic Appraisal

Few people experience life inside of prison. Even fewer are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether inmates should be released. In his twenty-four years on the Rhode Island Parole Board, Frederic G. Reamer has judged the fates of thousands of inmates, deciding which are ready to reenter society and which are not. It is a complicated choice that balances injury to victims and their families against an offender’s capacity for transformation. With rich retellings of criminal cases, On the Parole Board is a singular book that explains from an insider’s perspective how a variety of factors play into the board’s decisions: the ongoing effect on victims and their loved ones, the life histories of offenders, the circumstances of the crimes, and the powerful and often extraordinary displays of forgiveness and remorse. Pulling back the curtain on a process largely shrouded in mystery, Reamer lays bare the thorny philosophical issues of crime and justice and their staggering consequences for inmates, victims, and the public at large. Reamer and his colleagues often hope, despite encountering behavior at its worst, that criminals who have made horrible mistakes have the capacity for redemption. Yet that hope must be tempered with a realistic appraisal of risk, given the potentially grave consequences of releasing an inmate who may commit a future crime. This book will appeal to anyone interested in the complexities of the criminal justice system, the need to correct its injustices, and the challenges of those who must decide when justice has been served.

The Protection of the Accused from Miscarriage of Justice

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 590-611
Author(s):  
A.A.S. Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Small Proportion ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Miscarriage Of Justice

The criminal trial system is regarded as standing at the pinnacle of the state's machinery for dealing with crime. But the courts deal with only a small proportion of crimes committed. Their function is more indirect: to express societal disapproval through a public and somewhat theatrical show. This is not to denigrate the role of the courts or dismiss it as futile. The criminal trial does have important functions in the development of norms for criminal responsibility and in fostering respect for the law. But its success in this regard hinges on the extent to which it is perceived as a just and effective method for dealing with those charged with crime. Put crudely, the success of the criminal justice system turns in large measure in the success of the show it puts on. But theatre is good only for as long as it is able to carry the audience with it, which, in the case of the courts, this means as long as the public is prepared to accept their verdicts at face value.

Guilty Until Proved Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy

1986 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 518-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Ronald Huff ◽  
Arye Rattner ◽  
Edward Sagarin ◽  
Donal E. J. MacNamara
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Innocent Person ◽  
Wrongful Conviction ◽  
Extant Literature ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
The Subject

Few problems can pose a greater threat to free, democratic societies than that of wrongful conviction—the conviction of an innocent person. Yet relatively little attention has been paid to this problem, perhaps because of our understandable concern with the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in combatting crime. Drawing on our own database of nearly 500 cases of wrongful conviction, our survey of criminal justice officials, and our review of extant literature on the subject, we address three major questions: (1) How frequent is wrongful conviction? (2) What are its major causes? and (3) What policy implications may be derived from this study?

scholarly journals The State’s Economic Protection by the Criminal Justice System Corruption: A Case Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-69
Author(s):  
Kamri Ahmad ◽  
Hambali Thalib ◽  
Mursyid Muchtra
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Nickel Mining ◽  
Financial Losses

This study aims to identify efforts to protect the state's economic security through the criminal justice system in the case of nickel mining in Malapulu Block, Kabaena Island, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. The Supreme Court has decided the case with decision number 2633 K/Pid/Sus/2018. This research was conducted with a qualitative approach through analysis of the description of the prosecutor's indictment and the judge's decision. The results obtained in the study show that the KPK Prosecutor made a mistake by withdrawing the appeal that had been made. This condition results in the lack of consideration made by judges in decision making. Secondly, legal experts do not provide a difference in the meaning of economic and financial losses for the state in judex factie and judex jurist. Third, the indictment by the public prosecutor has not described the form of crime committed as an extraordinary crime. Fourth, there is negligence in the corporate sentence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document