Introduction
Criminal justice is a process with a number of steps. It starts with investigating the suspect and concludes with the release of the accused from prison. The process consists of rules governing the decision-making. This would mean that a clear decision making procedure is followed in making decision to ensure fairness. The policies followed in the process of administering justice are obtained from different sources.
For instance, the US constitution, federal principles, state laws, and the policies and regulations of the security agencies are some of the sources. In America, federal laws govern the process of decision making in all criminal justice institutions. The process should be more than a simple process of learning of rules and applying them. Rules should exist to guide an individual in order to make informed decisions.
This would mean a law-enforcing agent should look for an alternative course of action before implementing a policy (Andrews, & Bonta, 2007). In the police service, decision makers formulate personalized decisions implying that they rarely follow the laid down regulations.
In the US, research shows that some prosecutors make decisions without following some rules. In this case, they would not be in a position to know whether to grant bail or to charge an individual with a crime.
This paper would seek to discuss the decision making process within the hierarchy of the police service. Within the police service, a synergistic decision making model is frequently applied. This is where a problem is evaluated and the decision is made based on the outcome.
Decision makers would then come up with the most suitable solution. This is what should be happening in the police service as regards to criminal justice. Ten steps are to be followed by officers within the police service when criminal justice decisions.
Decision Making Model
As earlier mentioned earlier, synergetic decision-making model involves collective assessment of an event and coming up with a single decision, which is perceived to be more suitable. In real sense, synergetic model entails a joint effort or a group activity, which might perhaps ignite a response. This would possibility lead to suitable decision-making process in an organization.
The decision made should be superior to that of an individual. In the police service, this type of decision-making model has encouraged employees to work together, as a team. Some scholars observe that the model empowers experts in the criminal justice occupation.
Furthermore, the model would promote an improved working atmosphere. Some experts have found out through research that the model builds trust among the organizational members because of delegation of duties.
Synergetic model has two major parts. One of the parts is the problem resolution and the other is interpersonal relations part. The model suggests that all officers in various ranks within the police service should delay their decisions until all ideas are analyzed.
In this regard, a police officer in any rank is not supposed to comment on an event until all other facts have been evaluated. Therefore, it is the role of each officer to come up with a proposal knowing that his or her idea is subject to evaluation. The first part of the model, which is the problem solving part, is meant to help police officers to slow down their decision-making processes.
This means that they have to wait for the findings of other officers before concluding on their findings. In this case, the model suggests that members of the police service must come up with a technique through which questions would be asked to members of the public. The officers would then proceed to analyze the answers provided by members of the public.
The generated data should be viewed from various perspectives. During the process of analysis, each member should note down the objectives. This would be of value since it would help the officers to remain focused on the task. After analysis, members are expected to come up with a single verdict upon which a course of action would be developed.
However, some scholars note that this model is not viable since it is hard to implement it. In some occasions, members would generate two decisions. Each member would try to implement the decision that seems appropriate to him or her.
However, in most cases, it is expected that organizational members come up a single decision. In this case, members are urged to single out some of the obstacles that might interfere with the implementation of the collective decision. As such, members are urged to develop some mechanisms that would help them counter the obstacles.
The last section, which is the interpersonal process part, consists of paying attention, clarification of points, supporting each other, and building trust. Moreover, confronting each other and differing in terms of opinion are acceptable values within this model. Listening is the main factor since it would help determine the success of the organization.
Steps in the Criminal Justice Process
The first step in making decisions in the criminal justice organization pertains to investigation of a crime. The police would set out to collect some critical information, which would be used as evidence against a suspect.
The collected information is very important since it would be used to identify a suspect, as well as arrest him or her. In many parts of the world, including the US, investigations would include searching the premises occupied by the suspect. Other forms of searches comprise of exploratory assessment of an individual and examination of material goods.
Probable cause is generally considered a typical proof that justifies the searching of an individual. Probable cause is a term used to imply prior information exists indicating that a crime took place in a particular area. The second step in the process is arresting an individual who is suspected to have engaged in crime.
Arrest in this case means handing over an individual to the security agencies for questioning. Probable cause is the only officially permitted rule that would force the police to seize an individual. Probable cause means an individual is possibly linked to a certain crime (Cordner, & Scarborough, 2010).
The third process in the criminal justice organization is prosecution. This implies the district attorney is supposed to issue a verdict regarding the criminality of the offense. As a consequent, prosecutors are supposed to evaluate the crime by considering many factors before arriving at a conclusion.
For instance, the seriousness of the offense is usually considered before issuing a verdict. Another step, which is step four, is the indictment of the suspect by the jury. If not indicted, the suspect could perhaps be allowed to “fill information” under the supervision of the prosecutor.
In the US, under federal rules, a jury is expected to indict a suspect in case the crime is considered capital offense. In other cases that are punishable through imprisonment, the prosecutor may indict either a suspect or “fill information” (Cohen, & Reaves, 2006).
In the fifth step, which is crucial for both the accused and the accuser, the plaintiff is arraigned in court. The defendant is expected to show up in court and present a petition. In many cases, the appeals that are presented to the jury would determine whether an individual is guilty or not.
The sixth step is the pretrial detention or the bail stage. The accused might be detained temporarily while awaiting full trial. In the US, only the poor are detained temporarily. The rich would definitely pay an amount to buy the freedom of the accused provisionally.
The amount paid would be a sign of commitment showing that the accused would show up in court when called upon to do so. The seventh step in criminal justice is the appeal negotiation phase where the defense lawyer and the prosecutor come into terms over the techniques to be used in tackling the case. In many cases, the accused would plead guilty so that his or her punishment would be reduced.
The eighth step in the process of decision making in the criminal justice is trial. The process is also referred to as adjudication of guilt (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006). This takes place in the presence of a prosecutor, jury, and the defense attorney. Similarly, the trial must be held before a jury.
For the accused to be declared guilty there must be enough evidence. This is popularly referred to as guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the accuser should be less than one hundred percent sure but have a higher probability as regards to the commitment of the crime or felony. The accused is definitely acquitted in case there is doubt of reason.
The second last step, which is the ninth step, is the sentencing of the accused. This is only done when the accused is found to have committed the crime. In the US, the likely sentences would include payment of fine, audition, and imprisonment.
The last step is the appeal phase whereby the accused could perhaps request the court to try him or her once more (Bazemore, & Schiff, 2004). Petitions are frequently filed by lawyers of the court of appeal and would be heard by the adjudicators of the court of appeal only.
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2007). Risk-need-responsively model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.
Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Bazemore, G., & Schiff, M. (2004). Juvenile justice reform and restorative justice: Building theory and policy from practice. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
Cohen, T. H., & Reaves, B. A. (2006). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 2002. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Cordner, G. W., & Scarborough, K. E. (2010). Police administration (7th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Anderson Publishing.