Criminal Justice Paper on Perspectives on Justice

Perceptions of justice are developed either through experience with the justice systems or by being a victim of crime. In either case, the perspective of justice that is ultimately applied in determining the outcomes of a case is that to which the judge subscribes. I feel that the holistic view of justice best fits me. It is founded on the belief that every human is comprised of the three elements, which are courage, reason, and desire, and that justice is only considered served when every man has the three elements in balance (Siegel and Worrall 30). Such a situation would imply that the components of the accused, victim, and jury are in harmony. Through the mentioned perspective, the criteria that characterize justice would entail a balance between a crime and the punishment meted on the guilty person and the consideration of all the aspects of the case before determination. Equality and proportionality are also considered important to the definition of justice (Valverde and O’Malley 19).

Discussion 2: Measurement of Crime

Criminal justice professionals use various methods to measure crime. Siegel and Worrall  describe some of the approaches, including the uniform crime report (UCR) of 1930, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), victim surveys, National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS), and Self-Reported Surveys (50). Each of these methods comes strengths and weaknesses and is only effective to the extent to which its shortcomings do not constrain it. For instance, the UCR relies on reports that are made to the police. In the approach, data on the number of people arrested, witnesses or police, the victim reported crimes, and some officers are used. The consistent approach to evaluation is the key strength of this approach while its reliance on reports is its major weakness since many crimes go unreported. The NIBRS, on the contrary, uses an approach that is almost similar to that of the UCR. However, it has 22 crime categories hence is more versatile compared to the UCR, which has only two. Its biggest limitation is dependence on the collected crime reports. Victim surveys and self-reported surveys depend on the information that victims and criminals offer (Valverde and O’Malley 18). On the positive side, both methods collect extensive data that includes even unreported criminal activities. However, each of them is limited due to the potential for bias and the capacity of the survey participants to hide some information. The NCVS is whereby citizens are interviewed randomly twice a year, which is advantageous since most of the information is free from bias. Nevertheless, some people may not answer truthfully when questioned.

Discussion 3: Crime Classifications

Different crime classification approaches are used for unlawful activities. According to Siegel and Worrall (44), crimes can be grouped according to the scope of criminal liability, the type, and target. Regarding liability, there can be complicity, vicarious, and corporate offenses. Other groupings are based on the penalties that the crimes attract, origins of criminal activity, and common law application. Each of these classifications is further categorized into part I and II illicit activities based on the Uniform Crime Report. The data on crimes and their respective groupings is compiled at the city, county, state, and federal levels. The crimes are also categorized into violent or property crimes (Siegel and Worrall 46). Criminal justice professionals have to consider the crime characteristics extensively before engaging in the decision making processes.

When handling cases, criminal justice professionals conventionally determine the nature of crimes. For example, crimes such as murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, and aggravated assault are grouped under part one of violent crimes while those offenses that are perpetrated directly against a person are categorized under part II of violent crimes. Similarly, crimes such as arson, motor vehicle theft, and burglary are recorded under crimes against property in part one of the UCR (Valverde and O’Malley 12). Any other crime is recorded under part II except those that are related to tortfeasance.

Discussion 4: Private – Public Policing

The link between private and public policing results in enhanced security and crime reduction. According to Siegel and Worrall, the major rationale for the growth of the private policing sector is due to the insecurity that the wealthy in the society feel (164). The state pays for public policing, and most of the resources are directed to the poor. As such, constant complaints and consequences of crime are felt across the society. For this reason, the rich contract private policing agencies to provide them with enhanced security (Siegel and Worrall 183). Collaboration between private and public policing enhances the public’s confidence in the security systems. Managing community expectations for security can be challenging. Nevertheless, private-public policing makes it more possible to satisfy the needs if the community.

Details of service level agreements in private and public policing dissipate concerns about the legitimacy of the private policing sector. In this way, the private policing sector is kept within its mandate in enhancing security. The two sectors are similar in how they operate, and in most instances, the interactions between the two yield efficiency and wholesomeness (Sparrow 2). On the contrary, the key difference between the two policing structures is in their mandates. Private policing has greater restrictions than the public one while public policing authorities can access state resources and greater powers of implementation.

Discussion 5: Community, Problem Oriented, and Intelligence Based Policing

Different approaches to policing are available, all with the aim of reducing or preventing crime. The methods are effective in different aspects of crime control and are related to the others. Community policing, for instance, engages the community in preventing crimes through proactive activities such as eliminating factors that lead to crime. Problem-oriented policing, in contrast, focuses on specific crime disorder problems with the aim of identifying and analyzing them (Siegel and Worrall 220). It does so to establish effective response strategies. Intelligence-based regulating entails the implementation of a risk assessment and management approach to preventing crime. Given the applications of the different approaches to policing, these supervising practices are intricately connected. They are like links to a chain whereby one is the predecessor to another and both work together to reduce the prevalence of crime.

Although the bases of implementation of the policing approaches are different, they are fundamentally similar in their objectives. The rationale for this argument is that each of these approaches is incomplete on its own and thus ineffective in preventing crime (Valverde and O’Malley 22).  Each of the policing approaches also incorporates elements of the others in varying degrees depending on the circumstances under consideration. It is imperative for the justice system to keep innovating the justice system to ensure that it brings the best results.

Works Cited

Siegel, Larry J., and Worrall, John L. Introduction to Criminal Justice (16th Edn.). Boston: Cengage, 2018. Accessed from,+Larry+J.+and+Worrall,+John+L.+Introduction+to+Criminal+Justice+(16th+Edn.).+Boston:+Cengage,+2018.&source=bl&ots=wwZnbtCsNQ&sig=ZeeSdTDCJUoHRDKQXwFjOMR4Sio&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm07Ko2vrbAhUIRY8KHbXpA4AQ6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q=Siegel%2C%20Larry%20J.%20and%20Worrall%2C%20John%20L.%20Introduction%20to%20Criminal%20Justice%20(16th%20Edn.).%20Boston%3A%20Cengage%2C%202018.&f=false

Sparrow, Malcolm K. managing the boundary between public and private policing. New Perspectives in Policing, September 2014. Retrieved from

Valverde, Mariana, and O’Malley, Pat. Criminology (Oxford handbook of criminal law). In Dubber, Markus (Ed.), Oxford handbook of criminal law. Oxford Publishers, 2015. Retrieved from