Elements of Planned Change Administrators Must Be Familiar With
Consequential effects of change in the criminal justice system can be widespread. According to Merino (2012), the effects of the implementation of change or change initiating in the criminal justice system extend far beyond the desired change. Therefore, criminal justice administrators need to have a comprehensive understanding of various elements in planned change to guarantee its realistic and effective execution. The elements of planned change include the stimuli for change, target for change, and implementation stages.
The change stimuli give rise to the principle of inputs that inspires the initiation of a change process. Such stimuli are products of an extensive evaluation of the organization’s strengths and weaknesses. The changes in societal factors determine the appropriate change process in the criminal justice system. Social norms also influence the amendments in society.
Change targets emerge from the understanding that the center of interest in planned change is perceptible change. Reformers evaluate the change stimuli and find an appropriate means of achieving the perceptible change. Research shows that irrespective of where the stimulus arises from, the change must have a course for reaching an observable target. The criminal justice administrator should understand that change targets often begin at individual levels and rise all the way to the final level of the organization. These targets help criminal justice administrators manage information flows and dynamics in the industry that are significant components of the justice system’s operations (Hart, 1996).
On the other hand, the target for change enhances the understanding of the most appropriate location for implementing the change within the criminal justice system. It also allows to clarifying the reason why systems need to be changed and the consequential impact. Further, the change target enables the criminal justice administrator to concentrate on taking into account the change in seclusion from other strategic elements of the system. It also allows the administrator to see the target of change as the actual sub-system.
It should be mentioned that the targets of change come in three forms. These include culture, structure, and systems. Although occurring in the three distinct forms, the target for change interacts to generate the narrow system of interest, which is the actual condition that the system should change (Hart, 1996).
Another element of planned change that the criminal justice administrator must be aware of is the implementation process. The administration has to implement systems that can enhance the systems. After initiating the change process and transferring the output from new processes to the change stimuli, an organisation can establish whether there is a progressing need for change. The process of implementation is abstractly more undemanding than trying to make the new system work according to the design or plan for change. Notably, experts say that if a change system is not operating according to the plan, then it is incompatible with the entire system, lacks certain vital features, or the administration has failed to implement the change entirely (Hart, 1996).
Criminal justice administrators should note the differences that exist among planning, designing, and organising for change, and enhancing the new systems to deliver the desired changes. The earlier stages are intellectual processes. The later stages need not only intellectual input, but also leadership and motivational skills (McCarthy, 2012).
Should the Authorities Ban Exclusionary Rule?
The exclusionary rule is a legal concept in the US. It provides that the evidence gathered and evaluated by persecutors in violation of the defendant’s rights, may be inadmissible for criminal persecution. Since the drafters of the exceptional rule intended to protect citizens from illegal search and seizes, the government should not ban, but improve it (May, 2008).
The exclusionary rule is an essential component of the US legal system. It demonstrates the loyalty of the citizens to the law stating that no person even a governmental official is above the law. Many defendants are often innocent. Therefore, the rule helps to ensure that law enforcement officers do not charge accused people unheard. In addition, it preserves the integrity of the court systems. If courts admit pieces of evidence that law enforcement officers collect illegally, they become guilty of the violations (May, 2008). The country, which courts do not observe the rule of law, is at danger of slipping into anarchy. With due respect to critics of the rule on the basis that it increases the chances of setting the guilty free, there is a need to preserve the respect of the court systems for the long-term benefits of the country.
Additionally, the exclusionary rule protects the constitutional right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment states that people will have the right to be secure in their private premises and be safe from unreasonable seizures and searches. The distinct rule is, therefore, a device that allows the criminal justice system to implement the constitutional provision precisely. It is inappropriate to call for modifications of the Fourth Amendment because it protects the fundamental rights of the citizens. In addition, the rule has increased professionalism in the law enforcement department and enhanced attention on the need for better training of police officers. It is inappropriate to rely on a few instances of the law violation as evidence that the rule is ineffective. The criminal justice system should secure the rights of people (Hucklesby & Wahidin, 2013).
On the other hand, the opponents have reported several objections to the rule. Many of them are concerned that exclusion is costly as it increases the probabilities of freeing guilty offenders. Both critics and proponents of the rule concur that it provides no substantial support for guiltless victims of police delinquency. When the victims have no evidence of the police misconduct, they get absolutely no relief, which translates to putting the lives of most victims in danger (Peak, 2001).
Further, some critics also doubt the rule’s deterrent benefits since the rule is a pragmatic subject. Plausible reforms might make tort remedy significantly effective. There are also concerns that the rule promotes police perjury and narrow interpretation of the constitution.
While it is imperative that the rule is imperfect, the US should not abandon it. It offers critical solutions for the citizens and the police. As indicated above, the rule promotes transparency in the criminal justice system, discourages law enforcement officers from violating the right to privacy, and demonstrates the commitment to uphold the rule of law in the country. The logical thing to do is keep the rule and improve its scope.
References
Hart, J.M. (1996). The management of change in police organizations. In M. Pagon (Eds.), Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Comparing Firsthand Knowledge with Experience from the West (n.pag.). [National Institute of Justice/National Criminal Justice Reference Service]. Web.
Hucklesby, A. & Wahidin, A. (2013). Criminal Justice. (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Pres.
May, D. A. (2008). Reasonable use of force by police: Seizures, firearms, and high-speed chases. New York: P. Lang.
McCarthy, Q. (2012). Police leadership : A primer for the individual and the organization. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Merino, N. (2012). Criminal Justice. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Peak, K. J. (2001). Justice administration: Police, courts, and corrections management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.