The major components Criminal Justice System are mainly two, namely: the police or the peace keeping force and the legal system. The legal system in this case refers to the law, either in its written or intangible form, and the judicial institutions that are extant to define the course of the law. Examples of these judicial institutions include the courts. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the most overriding force behind the running of a criminal justice system is the spirit of the law. The police force on the other hand represents the active or the physical part of the law that gives the spirit of the law life.
In many countries, because security is a major issue, it is always normal that there are private security firms existing along the government sanctioned and owned security agencies. However, there are postulations being made by experts in the public security to the effect that lapses in the effective running and maintenance of the criminal justice system is pegged on the fact that there is no integration of the justice system (Judah and Michael 2004). This means that there is a divorce amongst the police force and the legal system as the major component of the criminal justice system and the private law enforcement sector.
To this effect, various propositions have been put in place so as to ward off these cases of lapses in the criminal justice system. Dijk and Stolwijk (2008), posit that at the moment, there are no adequate systems of correspondences between the police and the private security operations. The police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) work on their own as law enforcement agencies, whereas the private security operations also work outside the aegis and the help of the police, CIA or FBI.
This means that any accruals that the private security sector may realize exists ostracized from that of the public security agencies. The above can only mean that enough information that is accessed and stored by the private security operations, no matter how useful they may be to the proper management of criminal justice, are not noted and subsequently used by the governmental security agencies. To demonstrate this clearly, there is no connectivity whatsoever between the two divides.
The only place in which the government takes the private security system into consideration is during the registration of the latter. At the same time, there is no way in which these two sectors integrate during the training sessions of the law enforcement personnel’s training. This impasse continues despite the fact that all these security personnel deal with one and the same occupation that requires hands- on approach.
This only means that the revolutionalisation of the criminal justice departments through the sharing of ideas, inventions and discoveries are matters that remain within the precincts of only one side. It is because of the above fact that all the security agencies that are involved in the enforcement of security and the management of criminal justice do not have harmonized systems of training. For instance, it is a well known fact that only 5% of the security forces from the private and the non private security firms take the training of security details seriously, and in a practical manner.
The fact that the two divides are not integrated means that the concept of accountability is also compromised. This happens as the security agencies operate detached from each other and as such, no way is left in which comparative analysis can be done to rate the performance of these organizations. Part 2 According to Pattavina (2005), the importance of the need to ensure the ratification of a feasible Information, Communications and Technology (IT) set ups are also underpinned by the cultural trends specific to a certain organization.
For instance, a security company may prefer to use Windows and as such, may not find the idea of ensuring connectivity to another company that uses Linux a matter that is tenable. A security company’s IT culture is seen coming into play when the company gets used to the shortcoming of not regarding the use of passwords. This happens even in the face of the establishment of the new biometrics. Close analysis also reveal the fact that the security passwords that are used by majority of these security agencies that deal with criminal justice are insecure to the core.
The IT culture seems to be deeply entrenched into these companies’ security to an extent that statistical researches reveal that no matter what is done, companies that will institute the use of punctilious types of sign in systems are very minimal, meaning that the quest to inculcate IT security is very marginal. At the same time, studies reveal that many law enforcement and Criminal Justice management institutions do not sanction properly, the acceptable use of policies. It is through this form of negligence that these institutions forget to make classified policies and data sealed, and not just the IT systems (Duffee 2008).
It is because of this factor that most companies are able to keep their data system impregnable, but not their information. This allows the law breakers an edge over these institutions. In the same wavelength, security companies that use different types of IT systems may find it very costly to change the computer programs. At the same time, an overhaul of the logistics may be required, and this may portend, the organization having to start off anew, as far as computerization of data and operations are concerned.
In order to save the situation, in the bid to harmonize the operations of the private and the governmental sectors of criminal justice, it is incumbent upon the Congress and the Senate to pressurize the US government so that it ratifies laws that will impose a regulation that these institutions adopt the use of one IT program, right from the onset of their registrations and subsequent operations. It is because of the above situation that calls are rife for the US government to step in to the situation to create policies that will ensure that there are policies that will ensure maximum safety for classified information.
To this effect, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that there is IT connectivity between the non governmental and the governmental law enforcement agencies. This means that this should be done in a way in which the sharing of information that pertains to security between these sectors becomes a reality. This also means that all these agencies will have one central pool of information through which general crime and criminal justice can be managed for the well being of the society effectively. Conclusion
Since the issue of Criminal Justice is a concept that touches on national security, the onus is therefore upon the US government to ensure that there are clear cut policies that spell out the way in which all security organs are to be integrated so as to ward off chances for myopic styles of organization. At the same time, this begs for the need to implement policies that will ensure that all institutions involved in the management of Criminal Justice are all fit with IT systems that are safe and relatively impregnable to hackers.
Efforts should also be concerted to ensure that all these agencies can share information for the speedy assuaging of the spates of crime at the national level. References Judah, H. and Michael, B. (2004). Restoring the Cause of Criminal Justice. New York: Haworth Press. Dijk, M. and Stolwijk, S. (2008). The Law and Criminal Justice. Michigan: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Duffee, D. (2008). Concepts and Explanations on Criminal Justice. Oelgeschlager- Gunn & Hain Publishers. Pattavina, A. (2005). The Role of IT in Criminal Justice. New York: SAGE.