The discretion of the bureaucracy is inextricably linked to the process of implementing policy and its further influence on criminal justice. In other words, it is contingent on the analysis of the unlawful actions and consequent development of the strategies intended to mitigate the possible adverse outcomes (Gaines, 2014). Nonetheless, we should take into consideration the fact that the agencies responsible for the development of criminal justice policies are keen on planning and elaborating the policies. On a long-term scale, they depend on federal funding and their initiatives should be fully supported by several organizations to be considered legitimate.
To ultimately carry out the policy, the bureaucracy has recourse to several instruments. First, it makes the best use of public expenditures. This means that the bureaucracy expects to find a balance between the needs of the population and the requirements of the upcoming policy (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Therefore, the final spendings are based on the analysis of this balance and its careful application to the existing conditions. Second, the bureaucracy employs several economic incentives and penalties to trigger certain behavior in individuals (Marion & Oliver, 2012).
The influence of the relationships of stakeholders and the policy process can be evaluated from several perspectives. First, the stakeholders are an essential part of the collaborative justice, and this connection is designed to remove the barriers inherent in the conventional approaches to the issues existing within the framework of criminal justice (Gaines, 2014). The participation of stakeholders supports the development of all-inclusive objectives regarding criminal justice. The process of policy-making should be seen as the act of sharing and applying the information available to stakeholders. It is safe to say that the stakeholders are authoritative enough to impact the outcome of the development of criminal justice policy.
The influence of the policies on the criminal justice system is critical. This supposition can be backed by several factors. First, the policies minimized poverty rates and engaged the citizens into several activities (Marion & Oliver, 2012). This allowed the criminal justice system to improve its incarceration practices and review the basics of symbolic punishment. Second, the policies helped to revise the conditions of imprisonment and reevaluate the principles of juvenile justice (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Third, the policies permitted the criminal justice system to decrease violent crime rates and mitigate the issues connected to property crimes and immorality.
The current situation in the country shows that the bureaucracies are carrying out the initial goals of the legislatures, but the effects of these outcomes are significant and influence the citizens. On a bigger scale, the development of the bureaucracy limited people’s freedoms and concentrated the efforts of the law enforcement agencies on excessive control (Schier & Eberly, 2013). This may be explained by numerous factors that impacted the dynamic character of the bureaucracy, but the ultimate verdict is disproportionate and does not comply with the original incentives of the criminal justice policies.
The implications of bureaucracy policies are evident. Social justice balance is upset due to several unstable factors that cannot be controlled by the policies or bureaucratic apparatus itself (Moffitt, 2014). The application of the policies caused duality and does not adhere to human rights. The bias cannot be controlled, and the employment of extra policies was not recognized as an effective approach. Therefore, the government should apply critical amendments to renovate the functional priorities of the bureaucracy apparatus.
References
Gaines, L. K. (2014). Homeland security: A new criminal justice mandate. In S. L. Mallicoat & C. L. Gardiner (Eds.), Criminal justice policy (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moffitt, S. L. (2014). Making policy public: Participatory bureaucracy in American democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schier, S. E., & Eberly, T. E. (2013). American government and popular discontent: Stability without success. New York, NY: Routledge.