Criminal justice system, discretion, transparency, discrimination, criminal justice, drug, criminal legal system, police misconduct, police violence, government, equality
Discretion plays a critical role in the administration of criminal justice. Discretion in criminal justice starts with the decision to label certain acts as criminal and is followed by law enforcement officers, attorneys, and other key players making decisions based on one's conduct. As a result, the objective ideal ensures individual personal judgment, both in an organizational sense and collective sense. While discretion is essential since it allows key players to act according to the dictates of their judgment, it also opens the door to discrimination and potential misuse, leading to a disproportionate rate of arrests, convictions, and sentencing. Disparity based on discretionary sentencing add-ons such as secondary charges, firearms points, and other related legal factors can significantly increase sentencing points (Mascini 121). More essentially, increased arrest and incarceration across racial groups, especially minorities, do not reflect the increased prevalence of criminal acts but law enforcement's focus on minorities, urban regions, and lower-income communities.
[...] Discrimination at every stage of the criminal legal system is seen for drug possession law violations and low-level sales. People who sell small amounts of drugs to finance their drug use may be sent to jail for several years. This increased arrest and incarceration across these racial groups overlook the universality of drug dependency and the universal appeal of drugs. However, studies show that most drug offenders are white and that whites are likely to use drugs five times more than Blacks, but still, most drug offenders who are sent to prison are Blacks (Mascini 123). [...]
[...] Stricter policies would help hold key players accountable for their decisions, enabling easier police misconduct tracking. Works Cited Charman, Sarah, and Emma Williams. "Accessing justice: The impact of discretion, 'deservedness' and distributive justice on the equitable allocation of policing resources." Criminology & Criminal Justice, vol no pp. 404-422. Heta, D. S. "Definition and content of the concept of transparency of criminal justice." Law and Safety, vol no pp. 150-159. Mascini, Peter. "Discretion from a Legal Perspective." Discretion and the Quest for Controlled Freedom pp. [...]
[...] Transparency in decision-making ensures that decisions are made based on legal procedure in the criminal justice system, building trust in the entity. To help understand the procedures in the judicial system, Heta highlights plea bargaining, a highly consequential and understudied area of the U.S. court system (150). The scholar helps this concept and how it impacts the justice system in America. The author defines plea bargaining and explains why the majority of U.S. criminal cases never go to trial. When the resolution of criminal charges in the United States crosses one's mind, one can only imagine a jury trial. [...]
[...] 121-141. Porter, Louise. "Police Professional Standards Units and External Oversight Agencies: Can There Be Productive Collaboration?" Civilian Oversight of Police, 2019, pp. 229-250. [...]
[...] Disparity based on discretionary sentencing add-ons such as secondary charges, firearms points, and other related legal factors can significantly increase sentencing points. The presence of independent oversight bodies in CJS puts the needs of the department and the public ahead of personal interest to determine the extent to which racial underpinnings exist in the country. Furthermore, independent oversight bodies assess whether the add-ons are more devastating for marginalized defendants (Porter 229). Therefore, independent oversight bodies can be helpful in raising questions about how court discretion can perpetuate racial/ethnic disparities. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
