Government’s side

The system will have to be efficient to make changes in the country, considering both the society at large and the government. On the government’s side, the running of the processes in the criminal justice system will have to be economical in terms of use of resources in pursuit for justice. The professional involved should be held responsible of the use of resources so that they can be managers to their funds and do their work with the minimum required resources as fast as possible.

An example of this is the delay often caused in courts in the effort of a deeper search of evidence to ensure proof beyond doubt. If the judges become the managers of the cases instead of just following legal protocol in judgment, they can make the ruling of the cases faster by avoiding unnecessary adjournment (Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2002),. Cost effectiveness can also be attained through privatization of some processes and services, giving them the business approach.

Since the private sector stakeholders who will get these tenders to provide services will want to appear efficient in the name of competition, these services can be provided at very good timelines, contributing to efficiency. An example of such services to be issued out to private sector would be the scientific forensic investigations and the punishment processes. There will be instances where the crime committed will require lengthy and costly investigations in search for proof while other methods can be used to provide justice like the encouragement of plea negotiation.

Efficiency could be measured in many ways but the most important fact is that the system can handle many varying issues from identification; forensics and search, there will be need for prioritization. This will set the scope of certain processes and make the entire system more efficient to the victim. Fairness One of the most challenging parts of the justice process is fairness. The suspected person should remain a suspect until proven guilty and be given the right to a fair trial. Such a statement can lead to a situation where there is a dilemma of luck of enough proof for a proof beyond doubt situation (john, 2008).

The involvement of both the offender and the victim in such situations can lead to a faster conclusion in jurisdiction and also healing of the situation. If the system adopted advocate for healing the society through victim-offender mediation, it would lead to a situation of conviction to the offender and satisfaction of the victims. Criminal justice is generally about helping people in the community to be law abiding through enhancing their wellbeing. Therefore, a good criminal justice system will have to embed the component of the welfare of the community in its mandate.

This is a general issue for the society that will involve taking away the criminals from the society and healing them before putting them back in a more fitting form. An example of this would be the case of juvenile offenders taken to school based probations and going through therapy and psychological training, since their act of committing crime is seen in one way as a mode of communicating their inadequacy among other problems (BJA, 2000). Ones they are ready for reuniting with the rest of the society, they come back and make the community whole again with less crime.

Even though this is important to the entire society, it should not be focused on mediation alone without proper establishment of the guilty/innocent ends. The reduction of crime cannot be attained if the criminals themselves are not uncovered and ascertained to be really guilty of those crimes. The criminal justice system should therefore encapsulate to bringing criminals to justice as well as healing the crimes victims they live behind before the changed former criminals are eventually released back to the society.