De Vries Et Al Week 6 George Wajackoyah

Respond by Day 5 to two colleagues whose views on stakeholders differed from yours.

Task(s):
The task raises several issues regarding the role played by
stakeholders in criminal justice. (i): Three types of planning
committees that are important for criminal justice organizations to open
up stakeholders. (ii) Describing the purposes of each, (iii) the types
of stakeholders most likely to make the committees successful, (iv)
expectations, and (v) the importance of diversity among stakeholders on
the planning committees.

(i) Three types of planning committees that are important for criminal justice organizations to open up stakeholders

The
three types of planning committees that are important for criminal
justice are (i) Management & Policy, (ii) Communication, and (iii)
Intelligence.

ii) Describing the purposes of each.

(a) Management & Policy Committee.

Stakeholder
management is essentially stakeholder relationship management as it is
the relationship and not the actual stakeholder groups that are managed
Splitzeck et al. (2011). The future of policing in America is a
partnership, technology and intelligence-led policing. Law enforcement
is about detection and crime reduction (O’Neal, 2012). Marx Weber
(1947) conceptualizes charismatic leadership as the followers’ belief
that their leader has extraordinary qualities. House (1976) identified
indicators of charismatic leadership, including follower perceptions and
leader traits and behaviors. Charismatic leaders are self-confident and
seek power. They can manage their image, clear visions, communicate
high expectations, and instill confidence in followers (De Vries et al.,
1999).

Stakeholder
in criminal justice includes people with a legitimate interest in
usually policing the community and other participants. Law enforcement
officers enforce government regulations, and public interest is an
overriding guideline. Management requires well-coordinated structures
guided by participatory leadership and partnership (Supra).

Partnership
requires technology, communication, innovation, and intelligence.
“Working smarter and not harder” assists any organization to achieve its
objectives (O’Neal, 2012). The National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges (NCJFCJ) promulgated guidelines (Resource Guidelines:
Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases) to improve
the practice of courts in child abuse and neglect cases.

In
planning and implementing one family, one judge docketing,
jurisdictions must take into account logistical considerations that can
impact the program feasibility, acceptance, and success. These include
fiscal resources, local regulations, staffing, and workplace structures.

Partners
with law enforcement agencies include Federal, State, County
municipals, tribal agencies, religious groups, gang leaders, Highway
safety, School Safety, health officers and other professionals. Each
plays a vital role in the management of criminal justice. Developing
partnership among such requires bringing together those who can
contribute and benefit yet often may be competing or have other
priorities (Supra).

Included
in this team are Human resource, people with leadership skills,
financial consultants, professionals and law enforcement officers.

(ii) Communications Committee:

The
committee plays a more significant role in the provision of technical
expertise and Information technology. Collecting information,
processing, storage, and dissemination is one of the most critical
aspects. The committee should embrace the satisfactory stakeholders’
model adopted by Baltimore City on one Family, One Judge. This model
follows the National Council of Juvenile, and Family Court Judges
(NCJFCJ) promulgated guidelines (Resource Guidelines: Improving Court
Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases) to improve the practice of
courts in child abuse and neglect cases. Among the practices recommended
by the Resource Guidelines was one family, one judge model, in which
one judicial officer oversees the entire juvenile dependency case from
start to finish (NCJFCJ,

Communication
hinges on how well we understand others and how well they can
understand us (O’Neal, 2012). “Technology… has taken the process of law
enforcement information sharing to a whole new level creating now a
‘Digital Coffee Shop’ to exchange information (Supra). Communication and
information sharing assists law enforcement officers target both
criminals across such as well as similar crimes occurring in other
jurisdictions (Supra). Digital Coffee shop enables officers to have
faster access to information. Information leads to knowledge and
knowledge to wisdom. The committee should design policies and procedures
aimed at gathering and disseminating content and context to be
processed. Reaching out to crime analysts who can digest the vast amount
of information collected through human resources, electronic and
imagery (O’Neal, 2012).

The
Committee should embrace good relationships among stakeholders and
agencies. Looking out at the stakeholder’s model to help facilitate
implementation of model court practices such as one family, one judge
docketing

Most
stakeholders are satisfied with the one family, one judge docketing as
implemented in Baltimore City and believe that it has improved
efficiency and decision ‐ making. In planning and implementing one
family, one judge docketing, jurisdictions must take into account
logistical considerations that can impact the program feasibility,
acceptance, and success. These include fiscal resources, local
regulations, staffing, and workplace structures. Communication and good
relationships among stakeholders and agencies can help facilitate
implementation of model court practices such as one family, one judge
docketing. Stakeholders voiced mixed concerns regarding the fairness of
one family, one judge. Some stakeholders believed that the one family,
one judge model potentially or exacerbated judicial bias; whereas others
believed that the model reduced judicial bias. Understanding these
concerns is important in directing future research and practice (Reno,
1995).

(iii) Intelligence Committee.

The
intelligence committee should comprise of stakeholders with expertise
knowledgeable to understand past behaviors and forecast likely, future
behaviors (O’Neal, 2012). Intelligence may lead the police to harness
the power of the information that can be used by an executive or law
enforcement officer in recommending causes of action. Intelligence
collection provides law enforcement officers with trends, targeted
approach to crime control, reliable methods targeting crime prevention
and enabling the identification of persisting and developing problems
(Supra).

The
committee must design policy guidelines to wit the role of stakeholders
and law enforcement officers to ensure that civil liberties are
protected.

(iv) what is expected of them?

One
would question the role of stakeholders in criminal justice by asking
whether it is ‘rhetoric’ or ‘restoration’ (Braddock, 2011). Unlike the
Baltimore city approach as stated above, the idea of stakeholders is
restorative. The concept of introducing victim-offender mediation within
the cautioning process is the reconciliation of offenders and victims
following conditional caution (supra).

(v) the importance of diversity among stakeholders on the planning committees.

Diversity
plays a leading role as each expert on the planning committee
contributes evidence of his professional aptitude. Strong leadership and
a change in collaborative relationships, including representation of a
broad range of stakeholders and the commitment signaled by the
participation of high-level agency representatives (Tanner, 2009)
improves performance (Supra). Baltimore City’s collaborative model court
team includes a professor of social work from a local university, which
implemented Baltimore City’s one master, one family practice ideal for
evaluation.

In conclusion, more research collaboration is required to evaluate stakeholders’ contribution to criminal justice.

References:

Braddock,
R. A. (2011). Rhetoric or restoration? A study into the restorative
potential of the conditional cautioning scheme. International Journal of
Police Science & Management, 13(3), 195–210.

Shdaimah,
C. S., & Wiechelt, S. A. (2012). Converging on empathy:
Perspectives on Baltimore city’s specialized prostitution diversion
program. Women & Criminal Justice, 22(2), 156–173.

Wilson,
J. A., & Chapman, G. (2006). Finding common ground: Building
consensus among criminal justice stakeholders. Corrections Compendium,
31(4), 7–10.

O’Neal,
J. (2012). Embracing the digital coffee pot. In D. R. C. McCullough
& D. L. Spence (Eds.), American policing in 2022: Essays on the
future of a profession (pp. 67–70).

Oregon.gov. (n.d.). Statutory powers and duties. Criminal Justice Commission.