Which of the following countries does not employ a federal system of government quizlet?

Publisher Summary

The criminal justice system has a number of stakeholders, each with different expectations of the criminal justice system and forensic science. Regardless of the perspective of the stakeholders, all of them meet on the common ground of the court of law. To members of the legal community—including attorneys, judges, and jurors—forensic science is frequently viewed as a means to an end. After all, the physical forensic evidence and the scientific principles used to analyze the samples collected from a crime scene are the mechanisms through which many criminal cases are tried. Forensic evidence and the techniques used to study these samples make up the gist of the forensic knowledge presented in a criminal trial, and they are considered by its practitioners to be routine casework. This and other information are presented in court to assist the trier of fact. To the prosecutor, forensic science is the apparatus used to inculpate a defendant. To the defense attorney, forensic science is the adversary to whom a fatal blow must be struck. To the judge, forensic science is the scale on which guilt or innocence is weighted. To jurors, forensic science is a critical tool for decision making. To members of the law enforcement community, forensic science is the vehicle through which leads and theories are confirmed. Forensic science as a discipline is cheapened by the promulgation and reinforcement of the perception that it is a lesser science or merely a technique with no guiding philosophy; resources of all kinds—from grants to budgets to public confidence—are reduced by the devaluation of the science in forensic science.

Attitudes and perceptions of intoxicated witnesses and victims

The Criminal Justice System in the United Kingdom utilizes a trial by jury of one’s peers and as such, it becomes increasingly important to understand how potential jury members perceive intoxicated witnesses. CPS guidelines state that a person is able to give evidence as long as they are capable of understanding the questions put to them, and can give responses that are understandable (Crown Prosecution Service, 2018). There is no legislation in place denying a witness who was intoxicated at the time of the crime the right to give evidence. Nonetheless, there have been cases dismissed or defendants acquitted on the grounds of the witness being intoxicated at the time of the offense. In 2016, the mugging of victim Phoebe Greenwood never reached trial due to her intoxication at the time of the attack (Greenwood, 2016). Similarly in 2018, Mathew McKay was acquitted from a shooting in 2015 due to the intoxication of key witnesses in the case (CBC, 2019). Such examples clearly demonstrate that how intoxicated witnesses and victims are perceived does matter for the outcome of criminal trials.

Research by Evans et al. (2019) examined mock jurors’ perceptions of both witnesses and victims under varying levels of intoxication. Participants rated the intoxicated witnesses as less credible than the sober ones. Interestingly, there was no significant difference in credibility ratings between mildly and extremely intoxicated witnesses. The rating of credibility did not differ according to witness type i.e. bystander or victim or by crime type i.e. sexual assault or battery. Similarly, Lynch, Wasarhaley, Golding, and Simcic (2013) found that mock jurors rated the credibility of a rape victim as much lower and were less likely to settle on a guilty verdict when the victim was intoxicated. Unfortunately, intoxicated victims of sexual assault are often judged as more responsible for the event (Abbey, 2002). In a study by Sims, Noel, and Maisto (2007) college students were more likely to blame a victim for an assault if she had consumed alcohol compared to a soft drink.

Negative attitudes towards intoxicated witnesses and victims are not limited to the general public. Schuller and Stewart (2000) studied police officers’ attitudes and found that as victim intoxication increased the perceived credibility and blame for the perpetrator decreased. Likewise, Stewart and Maddren (1997) found that police officers were more likely to blame drunk victims in an intimate partner violence scenario compared to sober ones. Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, and Memon (2001) surveyed legal psychologists and found that 90% agreed that alcohol impairs an eyewitness’ later recall ability. A similar study with judges established that the majority agreed that alcohol intoxication reduces the reliability of witnesses (Houston, Hope, Memon, & Read, 2010).

To summarize, studies of juror decision making demonstrate that intoxicated witnesses are often considered less credible and reliable, whilst intoxicated victims are often seen as more responsible for their own victimisation. This suggests that an intoxicated victim’s access to a fair trial might be comprised at multiple stages during the process of Criminal Justice. Given the prevalence of intoxicated individuals coming into contact with the Criminal Justice System and the often negative beliefs held against them, it is surprising to see that research has just recently seen a burst in studies examining how alcohol intoxication impacts memory performance in real-life settings.

The Adult Criminal Justice System

The adult criminal justice system is comprised of four components; legislation, law enforcement, courts, and corrections. Each of these four components is comprised of subcomponents. Furthermore, each component and subcomponent has a specific function. Typically, individuals who are involved in the criminal justice system move from one component to the next. Individuals are processed by each component, of the criminal justice system, if applicable, which has a unique function. Each of these criminal justice components and subcomponents contributes to unique circumstances among offenders and former offenders due to the role of each component. These circumstances may affect the types of interventions criminal justice populations receive, as well as intervention outcomes.

In general, the legislative component is responsible for enacting laws that define offending behavior, as well as supporting interventions and a host of other societal laws. For instance, since the mid-1990s, the Washington State legislature has enacted and supported legislation that promotes the use evidence-based interventions in the adult criminal justice system and juvenile justice system (Aos, Mayfield, Miller, & Yen, 2006).

The law enforcement component enforces laws and provides a variety of service functions, many of which are in response to non-crime situations. In law enforcement settings, evidence-based practice takes the form of using data and empirical evidence to improve policing outcomes. Examples include reducing crime incidents or diverting individuals to appropriate resources.

The court component is comprised of numerous court structures such as civil courts, adult criminal courts, and specialty courts such as drug courts, mental health courts, and domestic violence courts, among others. These courts hear specific types of cases. Courts provide justice in response to a range of criminal, non-criminal, and social matters. Justice options can include punishment, treatment focused on rehabilitation, or a combination of these two options.

The corrections component includes institutional facilities, such as city or county jails, and State, Federal and private prisons, as well as community-based supervision settings including probation and parole. A former offender released from prison may be placed on parole supervision while living in the community. The former offender may be mandated to comply with parole conditions or face violations, which could result in a variety of sanctions including re-incarceration. These conditions may be drug testing or participating in a treatment program, for example. Conversely, a parolee may be released from prison without conditions.

Undeniably, the criminal justice system is comprised of complex organizations. These organizations operate on many levels including local, state, federal, and tribal levels. These organizations share many common features although differences are found due to legislative and regional differences. Among these differences are the types of interventions provided to offenders and former offenders. Criminal justice systems vary in the level of interventions offered, some of which are legislated whereas others are not. For example, some police departments hire police social workers to assist them with their services functions. This is not mandated among all law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, physical and mental health services are mandated among correctional facilities.

Evidence-based practices can be implemented in each of the four components of the criminal justice system and integrated with processing procedures. Several recommendations have been developed. Chandler, Fletcher, and Volkow (2009) identified the criminal justice stages of entry, prosecution, adjudication, sentencing, corrections, and reentry. These stages trace offenders’ movement through the criminal justice components from arrest, through court, to incarceration or community-supervision. Interventions include screening and referrals, or community-based services, drug courts, and drug treatment throughout the components of the criminal justice system. The authors identified law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, juries, probation officers, correctional officers, and community-based service providers, among others as criminal justice practitioners capable of implementing effective interventions.

Another model suggests that the criminal justice settings of law enforcement, courts, jails, prisons, and probation and parole can separately provide interventions ranging from screening and integrated services to mental health and substance abuse treatment, including drug courts. When individuals with mental illness receive empirically supported interventions in each component of the criminal justice system, it will reduce processing in subsequent components of the criminal justice system (Kennedy-Hendricks, Huskamp, Rutkow, & Barry, 2016). This model is also applicable for individuals without mental illness, since diversion approaches can result in clinical interventions and less criminal justice system involvement.

Conclusion

The criminal justice system has been significantly altered as a result of widespread substance abuse problems and drug-related crime over the past two decades. Courts, jails, prisons and community corrections have all grown dramatically during this time, and are facing enormous challenges to reduce the revolving door of substance-involved offenders cycling through the justice system. In response to this trend, a number of substance abuse treatment programs have been implemented in correctional facilities, including residential and “outpatient” programs that employ cognitive–behavioral and motivational enhancement approaches and that focus on restructuring “criminal thinking.” Specialized correctional treatment programs have also begun to address the needs of offenders with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders, who present additional risk for recidivism on release from custody. A growing number of correctional substance abuse programs have emerged in other countries, and these more prominently feature “harm reduction” approaches such as methadone maintenance.

Correctional facilities are also implementing re-entry initiatives so that offenders receiving drug treatment in jails and prisons can continue to receive these services in the community, following incarceration. In-custody substance abuse treatment and re-entry programs have been found to be quite effective in reducing criminal behavior and drug use during extended follow-up periods. The United States courts have not upheld the constitutional right to substance abuse treatment in correctional settings, other than for services that address serious medical needs. However, a number of professional associations (ACA, NCCHC) have developed sets of professional standards to guide development and implementation of substance abuse services in jails and prisons. Information-sharing between criminal justice and treatment professionals presents an ongoing set of challenges in coordinating effective offender treatment programs. Broad disclosure is provided under HIPAA between treatment providers and the courts, jails, prisons and law enforcement, although other state and federal confidentiality regulations also apply.

State and federal drug laws classify illicit drugs according to “schedules” that identify varying levels of health risk and benefits. There is considerable variability among the states in sentencing guidelines for drug offenses and enforcement of drug laws. Some states provide complex sentencing algorithms based on the quantity and type of illicit substances involved, and the penalties for drug offenses vary widely. Through the guidance of federal legislation, most states have enacted laws establishing legal impairment for driving while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs. Sentencing guidelines for DWI/DUI offenses vary significantly by state, and these offenses are not classified as felonies in some states until the second or third DWI/DUI arrest.

Civil commitment is available in the majority of states and in some European nations to provide emergency evaluation, treatment and monitoring of substance-involved persons who are in danger of harming themselves or others. These procedures allow for involuntary placement in both residential and outpatient treatment for specified periods of time. Court-ordered diversion and treatment programs provide another legal remedy for managing substance-abusing offenders, as an alternative to incarceration. Drug courts are perhaps the most visible example of drug diversion programs, and have been established in over 2,000 jurisdictions in the United States and in many foreign countries. Courts also frequently require involvement in drug treatment as a condition of sentencing, and court-ordered treatment is used extensively in the United States and in international settings. Research indicates that court-ordered substance abuse treatment is at least as effective as voluntary treatment, and that drug court programs result in significant cost savings and reductions in criminal recidivism.