i just need u to do the proposal on the info i provided
Part 2 of the course project requires you to complete Study Section II of the Department of Justice study. The submission must include both Study Section I and II and should incorporate any revisions suggested by your instructor in Study Section I.
Study Section II: Based on the information gathered in Study Section I of the study, propose changes and improvements designed to address the organizational and administrative challenges of each component of the U.S. Justice System: the police, courts, and corrections. The recommendations made during this study section must include identifiable justifications that thoroughly explain how the changes will address any existing issues.
Deliverables and Format:
Submit your answer in a Word document in not more than ten pages. Your paper should be well organized and free of grammatical and spelling errors. It is recommended that you structure your paper according to the following outline:
Always cite any sources that you use.
POLICING, COURTS, AND CORRECTIONS ??" COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS
Policing in the United States is highly decentralized, with thousands of individual local, tribal, state, and federal
police agencies maintaining exclusive jurisdictional law
enforcement authority as between different local agencies and shared jurisdictional authority as between local, state, and federal
agencies (Schmalleger, 2009). Under the U.S. Constitution, Federal
policing authority supersedes that of state police and under the constitutions of the individual states, state police authority supersedes that of local police agencies (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007; Friedman, 2005; Schmalleger, 2009).
Generally, police agencies in the U.S. are hierarchically structured paramilitary organizations in which the chain of command mirrors that traditionally associated with national military organizational structure (Schmalleger, 2009). Federal
police agencies operate under the authority and oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice headed by the U.S. Attorney General. State and local police agencies operate under the authority of the laws
and constitutional provisions of the individual states and municipal governments in those states ((Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007; Friedman, 2005; Schmalleger, 2009).
One of the most fundamental issues in contemporary American policing is the conflict between local laws
and contradictory federal laws
(Schmalleger, 2009). While there is no uncertainty with respect to the primacy of federal law
wherever local laws
are more permissive, the shared jurisdiction often leads to confusion and uncertainty about the specific conduct that is permitted and prohibited in a practical sense. A typical example of this problem includes situations where local laws
in certain states expressly permit (and even license) medicinal marijuana sales but whose licensed dispensaries still susceptible to criminal enforcement nevertheless by federal law
enforcement authorities (Schmalleger, 2009).
In the U.S., the respective authority of individual courts mirrors that of policing agencies to a great degree. Local, municipal, and state courts share jurisdiction over many types of cases, and federal
courts hear cases filed in the individual states over federal
issues (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2009). State supreme courts resolve appeals of lower state and local court decisions and federal
district courts hear cases appealed from lower federal
court decisions (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2009). The U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to hear any cases appealed from the highest state and federal
courts (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007).
Local and municipal courts hear certain types of cases filed by residents of those jurisdictions while state courts hear other types of cases (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2009). State supreme courts (or state courts of appeal) resolve cases appealed from lower courts in the state. Federal
district courts in the appropriate district hear cases appealing decisions of federal
courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to hear any cases appealed from federal
district court decisions (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2009).
Some of the most significant contemporary issues in the American court system have to do with issues such as mandatory penal sentencing guidelines that restrict the authority and learned judgment of federal
judges, state “three-strikes” laws
that may result in life sentences for conviction of relatively minor crimes in some situations, and over-prosecution of certain victimless crimes that result in overcrowded penal institutions and the inability to house some convicted criminals who may pose legitimate threats to public safety and welfare (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2009).
Generally, municipal and city jails house prisoners convicted of misdemeanors in the individual states; state prisons house prisoners serving sentences in excess of one year in connection with felony convictions in the individual states; and federal
penitentiaries house criminals serving federal
sentences after conviction for violating federal
((Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007; Schmalleger, 2009).
Generally, cities and local municipalities maintain jails in their jurisdictions while state corrections agencies administrate state penal systems and institutions located within individual states (Schmalleger, 2009). The federal
penal system operates independently of state and local corrections and maintains corrections facilities throughout the country (Schmalleger, 2009).
One of the most important contemporary issues facing the American corrections system include is the tremendous problem of overcrowding that is associated with compromised safety and welfare of the penal population and that often results in excessively liberal sentencing (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2009). Another important problem is the issue of prison privatization in connection with the takeover of penal facility administration by private for-profit organizations. That is especially true in light of the concept of political lobbying by private industries with the capacity to change laws
that ultimately have financial benefits for the lobbying industries whose revenue is directly dependent on maintaining high numbers of criminal convictions leading to incarceration (Dershowitz, 2002; Schmalleger, 2009).
[ Order Custom Essay ]
[ View Full Essay ]