Introduction
The issue of comparative effectiveness of centralization and decentralization is prevalent in the case study presented by Stojkovic, Klofas, and Kalinch (2014). While the National Advisory Commission (NAC) provided recommendations on the structure of criminal justice organizations back in the 1970s, the heated debate regarding its effectiveness is still in place. This assignment briefly examines the issue of centralization and decentralization, overviewing the negative consequences of the attorney’s office funded by the state, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the commission’s recommendations.
Negative Consequences of the State’s Funding of the Attorney’s Office
The central idea why the local prosecuting attorney’s office should not be funded by the state refers to the concept of separation of power. The aforementioned principle balances to support the stability of the government, providing checks to each branch of the government. If one branch (or even person) is entitled to more power than others, making decisions to one’s best interest rather than for a collective good, the intended mandate of the position shall be dismissed. Not only the separation of power balances the organization’s right for authority, but it also contributes to lower levels of corruption and prejudice in the industry.
Therefore, in the case of the local prosecuting attorney, the official should receive payment from municipal funds to avoid external influence and pressure of other authoritarian figures. Provided this position is funded by a state, the likelihood of the conflict of interest arises, as the prosecutor makes a decision in the city’s best interest rather than that in the state’s. Another possibility for the conflict appears if the prosecutor is assigned to investigate a state official. To secure the principle of separation of power, funding for municipal positions should be separated, as well. Similar strategies are to be applied not only on the local but also on the federal level of the governmental hierarchy.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Commission’s Recommendations
The implementation of the commission’s recommendations remains a controversial issue in the industry, as well. On the one hand, it is beneficial to apply these guidelines as they were thoroughly researched by legal experts. Before finalizing the proposals for recommendations, the Law Commission (LC) consults with federal, local, and state officials to find common ground on the issue. Commission recommendations frequently touch several areas of law simultaneously. In other words, by implementing one commission recommendation, it may be easier to understand a multitude of law cases.
Despite the aforementioned pros of the commission recommendations, several disadvantages should be explored. Implementation of the commission recommendations is a slow process that needs to be approved and finalized by the government. Even after the final approval, the parliament does not have to follow all the guidelines mentioned in the commission recommendations, meaning that their implementation may be only partial. In this case, a partial implementation may not lead to the best results, limiting significant changes in the executive system.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the current debate regarding the NAC’s commission’s recommendations on the criminal justice organizations’ structure lasts for more than four decades already. The local prosecuting attorney’s office should avoid state funding because of the principle of power separation. The advantages of commission recommendations include thorough research by legal experts, consultation with government officials, and coverage of a multitude of law cases. Drawbacks of the aforementioned concept refer to a slow process of approval and partial implementation of the guidelines.
References
Stojkovic, S., Klofas, J., & Kalinch, D. (2014). Criminal justice organizations (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.