Essay on Court Systems

Introduction

Criminal justice cannot exist without a well-functioning criminal court system. The criminal caseload must be managed properly, correctly, and expeditiously if the courts are to be efficient and successful. Judicial officials must be relieved of needless administrative work while avoiding interfering with the judiciary’s independence. Criminal justice systems may benefit from better case flow management, which is a court’s ability to keep track of a case’s development from its initial appearance through its final conclusion. An effective case flow management strategy is one that prioritizes and allocates finite resources in order to expedite the conclusion of criminal cases. (Freiburg, A. & Carson, WG. (2010) page 153)

Unit of analysis in court systems

Terrorism in the United States

Violence used in a systematic or threatening manner to create fear in a population or government with the goal of effecting political, religious, or ideological change is frequently referred to as “terrorism.” Famous non-state actors or spies operating on behalf of or without permission from governments are included in this category. (Blumstein, A. (2013) Criminology page 725)

Following the September 11 attacks, extreme right-wing extremist organizations were involved for 73 percent of the 85 fatal occurrences, while radical Islamist extremist groups were responsible for 27 percent, according to GAO statistics from 2017. During the 2016 assault on an Orlando nightclub, a lone shooter killed 49 people, with radical Islamist’s accounting for 41% of those killed. Each faction was responsible for about the same number of deaths. As of 2018, right-wing extremism was implicated in the vast majority of ideologically motivated killings committed throughout the United States. (Blumstein, A. (2013) Criminology page 726)

By 2020, right-wing radicals will be responsible for most terrorist incidents and plots in the US. Since September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorism has killed more Americans than domestic terrorism. White nationalists are the largest domestic terrorism threat, according to DHS officials in October 2020, and FBI Director Christopher Wray affirmed this in March 2021, comparing them to ISIS. (Blumstein, A. (2013) Criminology page 727)

Terrorism incidents in the United States

According to a 2020 assessment, terrorist events in the United States happened between 2016 and 2019. Between September 11, 2016 and December 31, 2019, it determined that nearly three out of every four persons convicted of international terrorist charges were foreign-born. Researchers from the Triangle Center and the Police Executive Research Forum polled 382 law enforcement agencies around the country in 2018. Only a small number of terrorists strikes in the United States are carried out by Muslim radicals. Only approximately nine American Muslims have participated in terrorist plots in United States per year from November 9, 2016, which has resulted in roughly 50 fatalities. At an average of 337 incidents per year, right-wing extremists murdered more people than Muslims during the same period. . (Blumstein, A. (2013) Criminology page 725)

Solutions to terrorism

When it comes to fighting terrorism, a fair and effective criminal justice system that follows the rule of law and respects human rights is essential. This kind of counter-terrorist reaction may be able to prevent or reduce the use of excessive and/or illegal force in counter-terrorist operations. Even in the face of terrorism, people’s commitment to the rule of law may be reinforced. Overall, the goal is to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts while still functioning within the bounds and protections of the criminal justice system. (Johnson, L. M., Lebold, S. M., & Elam, P. (2016) Criminal Justice page 418)

Adopting all of the recommended reforms to the criminal justice system may be difficult, especially in nations with limited resources. When faced with an immediate danger, states have resorted to improvised criminal justice measures, which may violate internationally recognized human rights treaties and normative norms, to meet that requirement.

To combat terrorism, the US government has devised the NSDD-138 plan, a comprehensive strategy that delegated responsibilities to federal agencies, assigned particular counterterror tasks, and coordinated the activities of more than 26 federal agencies. A prescription for proactively eliminating terrorists and their bases will be provided by enforcing NSDD-138, which brings consistency to the vast variety of existing U.S. counterterror measures now in place. (Johnson, S. M., & Elam (2016) Criminal Justice page 418)

Combating terrorism should make greater use of American military and paramilitary forces. As a result of the US military’s Delta Force and Navy SEAL Team 6, as well as other special operations teams, the country is able to destroy terrorist training facilities and apprehend suspected terrorists. Instead of depending on non-military penalties, these capabilities should be used in a long-term campaign against terrorists. ( Johnson S. M., & Elam (2016) Criminal Justice page 419)

Conclusion

Law will not function properly until independent courts are in place, which implies courts that are not subject to the dictates of the political establishment. An impartial judge can ensure that your case will be determined in accordance with the law and the facts, rather than the whims of changing political currents, and that your rights will be protected. In every state, there are not one, but two different court systems: state courts and federal courts, which are separate from one another. Courts help at large to reduce the terrorism case I the United States of America. (Johnson, L. M., Lebold, S. M., & Elam, P. (2016) Criminal Justice page 419)

References

Blumstein, A. (2013). Linking evidence and criminal justice policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 721-730.

Bogenschneider, K. & Corbett, T. (2010). Evidence-based policymaking: Insights from Policy- Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Bousfield, N.K., Cook, A.N., & Roesch, R. (2014). Evidence-based criminal justice policy for Canada: An exploratory study of public opinion and the perspective of mental health and legal professionals. Canadian Psychology, 55(3), 204-215.

Cherney, A. (2009). Exploring the concept of research utilization: Implications for evidence based crime prevention. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(4), 243-257.

Durose, M.R., Cooper, A.D., & Snyder, H.N. (2014). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (NCJ 244205). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics website

Freiburg, A. & Carson, WG. (2010). The limits to evidence-based policy: Evidence, emotion and criminal justice. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(2), 152-164.

Henderson, C.E., Young, D.W., Farrell, J., & Taxman, F.S. (2009). Associations among state and local organizational contexts: Use of evidence-based practices in the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103 23-32.

Johnson, L. M., Lebold, S. M., & Elam, P. (2016). Use of research evidence by juvenile justiceand youth service professionals: A research note.” Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(4),402-419.

Manning, M., Smith, C., & Homel, R. (2013). Valuing developmental crime prevention. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(2), 305-332.