Description
respond to the following 3 classmates :
1. Aquila :An effective leader is more than a person who delegate tasks from the top. A great leader is someone who has humanity and an understanding to everyone who is in their line of service. Having an effective leader will inspire and motivate others to do their job effective and with purpose. Criminal justice organization need effective leadership because it provides trust with the public we serve. Leaders promote change, positive behavior, and the knowledge to become a great leader one day. My experience with my current law enforcement agency has taught me that every agency needs effective leaders who has work in the field to understand why and how some things happen. Often, criminal justice leaders promote a person because their years in service and not what they possess as a leader. I found myself becoming a leader in law enforcement because my ability to adapt to change, listen and have understanding. I have also had leaders who did not have the common knowledge to lead the team in an effective way where we can be successfully. Not having an effective leadership will lead to destruction will cause good staff to stray to other employment. It also takes the moral down within the department and you lose hope that everything you are doing is not for a purpose. Having an effective leader will change the dynamics of any department especially in law enforcement and just because you have years in service doesn’t mean you qualify to lead a team.
Closed System Model are said to be easier than open system mode. If I had to apply closed- system model to the criminal justice agencies it would be corrections. Often times, a inmate is injured by another inmate and an internal investigation is conducted to find the suspect to determine the reason the inmate was assaulted. Another reason the closed system model would be beneficial in corrections is when a officer is said to be subordinate and engaged in behavior that is unbecoming. Unless body harm was done there is no need for any outside investigation to be conducted. Everything will be taking care internal. Only time outside law enforcement agencies would be contacted in corrections if an inmate is found to be in possession of drugs, death or an inmate, assault on staff and or assault on an inmate by an officer that was not justified. During any of these times in corrections, sometimes the open system model is used. For example, if an inmate dies and it is stated that an officer may be the suspect or had any knowledge what happened and didn’t intervene, Department of Justice comes in and ask questions and a investigation will be conducted. Though no one wants the open system model to come in to play during the department but often its necessary to get a resolution to any problem. I personally don’t have a issue with either model being displayed in the career fields because they are used accordingly to the situation at hand.
The service quality in the police organization and the correctional system sometimes goes hand and hand. Both systems service quality focus on making sure all use of force are justified. Making sure the officer is not using their position for personal gain. It’s important for officers to understand the vital role they play. The response time officer responds to calls and the time correctional officer respond to codes that being called indicate how great services that are being provided. Tracking the use of force report by corrections officer but as well as police officer ad well. Police organization along with the correction system both ensures training and certification are conducted yearly to keep up to date with the policy. The service quality in the police organization is to serve and protect the citizens within the community. The police organization also focus on keeping the crime down in the community and gathering feedback to the public and see what areas need to be adjusted. The service is in the correction system is to make sure the inmates are being treated fairly, their basic necessities are being met while in prison. In conclusion, measuring quality in the correctional system and police organization is a process that involves getting feedback from the public along with the inmates. Employees are more effective in their role if they feel like they are appreciated. Though the police organization and the correctional system are two different entity, they go hand in hand with making sure things run successful.
2. Hans:Allen and Sawhney (2019) acknowledged that an important task of leadership is to motivate others to accomplish organizational goals. Furthermore, Koontz (1961) believed that most people agreed that management is getting things done through and with people. One way to see the criminal justice system is as a business run by a federal, state, or local entity for the benefit of its customers (community). Like any other business, a business thrives through the service it provides and the trust and confidence the consumer has on the product or service it receives. Todays, criminal justice organizations need effective leaders and managers to make sure the organizations goals, the service they deliver and its employees providing the service are acting within the boundaries of the organizations policies and relevant federal, state, and local laws. I believe having effective leaders in criminal justice organizations can foster success in multiple ways. For example, provide guidance in the business operations side of the organization to promote training and resources to its employees to conduct their tasks safely, effectively, and efficiently. Additionally, an effective leader can assist in providing guidance from the top when questions or problems arise that exceed a manager’s training or expertise. I also believe that a business cannot function without effective managers. Mangers assist with the direct supervision of the workforce and are the first line supervisors for any quality control issues. Without properly trained and equipped managers the employees would be left to interpret their duties based on personal opinions, experiences, or their own interpretation of the laws they are trying to enforce.
Overall, I believe that the criminal justice system theoretically would work better under an open-system model. However, if I had to choose a closed-system model to apply to criminal justice agencies, I would use the closed-system model on corrections. The fact that closed-systems do not depend on the external environment for explanations or solutions (Daft, 2015), would be ideal in an institution that routinely has little to no input from external forces. According to (Kifer et al., 2023), The four different goals of corrections are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. These goals have been incorporated into our corrections system with highly structured rules and policies at their perspective correctional facilities. It is my opinion that any explanations or solutions to problems in these facilities are directly associated with the leaders, managers, and employees within the facility. Therefore, any attempt to solve the situation should first focus on the internal operating procedures in place. When it comes to the criminal justice agencies and applying open-systems models, I believe the courts benefit most from open-systems model. The enactment of new laws, court case rulings made in higher courts and the overall change in societal perspectives on certain topics, in many instances determines explanations and solutions in court rulings. Without an open-system model in our courts, Henry Labouchere’s, Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which made gross indecency between men a crime, could still be used as law of the land. Most notably Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing were amongst many convicted under Section 11.
As stated above, criminal justice organizations should be perceived as businesses that offer a service to customers. Being able to view these entities as such, provides the ability to tangibly measure the service quality they are providing. When it comes to police organizations, various factors should be measured when accurately rating their performance. First and foremost, police organizations response time to their customers provides valuable data into how effective and efficiently they are operating but can also provide additional information into staffing or coverage problems. Additionally, one would have to look at the police organizations relationship to the community in relation to other police organizations who operate in similar communities. For example, the number of complaints filed against officers or the organization. Furthermore, one could also say the number of tips or information provided to local authorities demonstrates the amount of trust the community has on its local department. When it comes to measuring the service quality of the corrections system. Safety should be the corrections system and its customers biggest priority when determining service quality. In these institutions, officer’s safety, and that of those housed in the correctional facility would easily determine the quality of the service provided. In measuring deterrence, we could look at the number of repeat offenders who have served time at these facilities. Lastly, I believe it would be important to look at statistics regarding the inmates and educational or trade courses taken or completed to try and comprehend the service quality of the facilities rehabilitation goals.
3.Kyle Every organization needs effective leaders or managers, even more so in criminal justice organizations due to what’s at stake for individuals that experience the process of the criminal justice system. I believe a leader or manager is effective based on how well they solve problems and can fall into four categories. Problem creator, problem identifier, problem solver, and problem preventer. It’s worth noting that a problem creator isn’t necessarily a “bad” leader, often it could be a situation where someone is brought in from outside the organization and is currently getting acclimated. In other words, a new leader. The others are self-defining in problem identifier, problem solver, and problem preventer. As an identifier, these leaders are great at seeing problems that may be obscure and only able to be found by a leader with a keen eye, but the pitfall with this category is inaction. These leaders often pass the buck to their boss or team and will present problems with no solutions outlined by Devore (2004), essentially, they have no accountability in fixing problems. Problem solvers are the stereotypical “good” leader or manager. They can identify issues, but also solve the issue with quick turnaround as they don’t delay and often come up with multiple solutions like Devore (2004) also mentioned. Lastly problem preventers, these leaders are the pinnacle of the pyramid, they can do all the former while also being able to foresee problems and put solutions into place before the problem because reality.
Not everyone can prevent problems, and my above method is fluid, as an individual can flow between the different categories, but it’s important to strive to be a problem preventer.
One way to strive for that is through feedback. This feedback can come from superiors or subordinates. Acceptance of feedback, even if critical, is essential for a leader or manager’s growth. It also can create a more cohesive organization as receiving feedback from your subordinates in a healthy way shows that you are self-aware and legitimately want to improve yourself and the organization according to James & Brian (2023). They go on to say that it shows how you care about your team members’ opinions, and again this helps facilitate a positive impact on the organization making you and it more effective.
It’s beneficial to see problem solving skills or results, in general, as a measuring stick to assess the effectiveness of a leader or manager. Simultaneously, feedback and overall relationship between manager and subordinate is a measuring stick as well. Madanchian et al. (2017) concluded that regardless of how effectiveness is measured a good leader can succeed with a lackluster business plan, or in some cases team, handed to them; while a bad leader will squander an exceptional business plan, or team. Thus, the vitality of an effective leader in criminal justice organizations to ensure success regardless of how one wants to measure it.
2. If you were to apply closed-system models to criminal justice agencies, which areas of criminal justice would they best fit? What about open-system models?
Closed system models mainly look inward for answers due to the main belief that external circumstances and conditions do not affect the organization’s functionality. It is also defined by the rigidity of the model as well. Our textbook uses the example of a prison as a closed system model. This is applied with the hypothetical of prisoner abuse, and in this hypothetical the prison would analyze the problem with evaluation on things like internal prison policies, procedures, personnel, culture, etc. to find the root cause of the inmate abuse problem (Allen & Sawhney, 2019). Obviously in modern times it’s very hard for any organization to be a wholly closed system, but I’d like to assert another within the criminal justice system that can be considered closed. The court can be considered closed due to the rigid nature it maintains. Furthermore, the court looks internally to assess mistakes it may have made. For example, if a case goes to appeal and the superior court reverses the original decision the trial court will look internally to see where the mistake was made; whether a procedural error was made, misinterpretation of the law, precedence was found, etc.
As for open systems, they are just the opposite of closed systems. Open systems operate under the assumption that external factors have a legitimate impact on operations. This model is more realistic in modern times but can still struggle for solutions due to the balancing act needed to accommodate internal and external variables. Time here is another important variable as external factors are always changing, especially in modern times with globalization, social media, technology, etc. So, it is important to maintain flexibility with open systems (Allen & Sawhney, 2019). For example, police departments in the US are now becoming more open systemically than before. There has always been a dichotomy between closed and open systems for police departments, but as the public demands more accountability police departments have had to become more open. This is something that should be acknowledged when studying systems of criminal justice organizations in modern times (Roelofse, 2015). Thus, due to public outcry police departments are adjusting to the external environment through changes to procedures, policy, training, etc. To not lose 100% of trust from the public. It is also worth noting that as police departments transition to more often having an open system that preventative policing approaches could be developed here as they are in South Korea. This would give more flexibility in law enforcement stopping crimes before they occur, which is a pillar of open systems, flexibility (Lee et al., 2010).
3. How would you best measure the service quality in police organizations and the correction system?
Often when we think of service quality when applied to the police, we think of crime statistics, number of arrests, or maybe traffic violations administered. But these don’t really “fulfill” all the needs of the customer, the public. The statistical categories I mentioned are just quantitative and don’t necessarily establish what would be considered “quality”. So, while “quality” is subjective it’s still important to define the characteristics of what quality police work is. Personally, I think Mastrofski (1999) nailed these with his six criteria he deemed, “policing for people.” They are attentiveness, reliability, responsiveness, competence, manners, and fairness. The primary ones that stick out to me are competence and fairness. Police need to be competent in the law, how are they supposed to uphold it if they don’t know it; and police have a duty to be fair as they are simply stewards of the law, they are not meant to carry out punishment or determine guilt. Mastrofski (1999) created these criteria and they have been used numerous times with surveys to determine public perception of police like Maguire & Johnson (2010) did in a Virginian suburb. I think this is an appropriate approach; create questions centered around the six criteria that Mastrofski (1999) created and ask citizens of the same police jurisdiction to complete the survey.
As for the correction system, common goals for our prison system in the US are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. There is also an expectation of quality of life for the inmates as a prison system needs to remain humane. With those criteria we can address how to measure the service quality of the correctional system. There is an argument to be had that mandatory minimum sentencing hurts our criminal justice system due to judges being handcuffed to predetermined punishments, as Adelman & Deitrich (2022) assert. Thus, despite each crime and case being unique, we have generic punishments that may not fit the circumstances. So, from that viewpoint retribution has some flaws in its accomplishment. As for deterrence and rehabilitation here in the US our recidivism rate, the rate of an inmate being rearrested, is around 82% after 10 years according to a 2018 study done by Antenangeli, L. & Durose, M. (2021) in the justice department. That same study found that about 60% will return to prison. From this we can see that rehabilitation is failing as a goal, or criteria, of quality service in the correctional system. Same can be said for deterrence, as the federal and state systems are both over capacity as of 2019. There are also issues with living conditions for inmates, these are found through inspections, which I feel is an effective answer to measuring quality service of a prison, but they need to happen more often.
