Criminal behaviors have been a challenge facing the world, especially among the youth. With increasing influence from the peer and internet coupled with mass jobless in many countries, the rate of criminal activities among the youth has been escalating as time goes. This has been a danger as many teens are currently spending most of their time behind bars leaving their families and nation in a difficult economic situation. Policies have been put in place to ensure that such kind of behaviors is controlled in many countries. Mass criminalization is a national policy in the USA which aims at arresting and detaining any person who has been suspected of any illegal activity. This policy cut across all the illegal criminals. It includes drugs, rape, and many others. What has been noted about this policy is the rate at which it has been misused. Since the time this policy was put in action, USA is leading in the rate of arrest in the world. The primary aim of this policy was mostly to facilitate the drug war and other crimes which relates to it. It also aimed at reducing the number of illegal migrants which have been an issue in the USA. For instance, during their Obama error, USA arrested, detained and deported nearly 400,000 people every year ( Schoenfeld, 2012). The rationale behind this policy is the fact that the Americans believes that people should uphold the law and any person who goes against the rule of law should be arrested and detained. This has led to the highest number of arrest in the land. In comparison, there are other laws in other countries which also have similar policies as far as the issue of criminal behaviors is concerned. For instance, there is a national policy in Canada which allows the peace officers to arrest any person found committing a crime on the scene without warranty. This is a policy which was enacted to curb the increasing rate of criminal behaviors and activities in Canada. The author of the paper, therefore, aims at comparing the mass criminalization policy in the USA and the Warrantless arrest in the Canada.
These two policies have some similarities and differences. The first similarity is based on the purpose of the arrest. In Canada, under the warrantless policy, a peace officer will make no-warrant detention in the following situations. First, they will arrest whoever has committed a crime, or that individual whom, based on the reasonable ground is believed to have committed a crime or is about to engage in criminal activity. Second, the peace officers are authorized to arrest without warrant, whomever they find committing a crime of any kind. Lastly, peace officers are authorized to make arrest without warrant in a situation where they find that the “person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found". This is similar to that of the mass criminalization ( Ackerman & Furman, 2013). In mass criminalization, arrest is made by any officers in situations; first, where their person is found committing a crime, secondly, where the person is found to have committed a crime, and lastly, in a situation where one is suspected to be behaving in manner suggesting that they are about to commit a crime. In both cases, the arrest is geared towards those who are mostly suspected to be involved in crime, had involved in crime or, are about to engage in crime.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second similarity is in the consequences of the two policies. In the warrantless arrest, peace officers who are acting under section (2) and also, under the subsection (1) w of the Canadian constitution, which give them mandate to arrest without warrant is deemed to be acting lawfully and is executing is a mandate as a peace officer in Canada. This is same in the mass criminalization in the USA. The officers arresting a criminal are covered by this policy and are deemed to be in the line of duty by the stipulated codes of conduct which are under this policy. The last similarity, in this case, is based on situations where the officer should not make an arrest. In both cases, the officers should not arrest an individual under the following conditions; first, where there is no reasonable ground regarding whether or not the person has committed a crime. Second, there is no rational ground that the individual had or is about to involved in criminal activity ( Skolnik, 2015). Lastly, they shall not make an arrest where they are convinced that the person does not deserve to be arrested.
There are some differences between the two policies. The first difference is the person making an arrest. While in the mass criminalization policy in the USA, any officers can make an arrest, in the warrantless policy in Canada, only peace offices are given authority to make such an arrest. Alternatively, warrantless can be extended in such a way that it includes an arrest in a situation where the peace officers suspect that an individual is causing or is about to cause chaos or destruct peace. However, mass criminalization does not state any of this ( Corradi, 2012).
In conclusion, the author of this article has defined and analyzed critically based on a comparison form, the mass criminalization policy in the USA and the warrantless policy in Canada. Based on the analysis, the author has revealed that the mass criminalization policy in the USA has some similarities with regards to its structure, its content, and the basic guidelines as the warrantless policy in Canada. The author has also revealed the differences between the mass criminalization and the warrantless arrest in USA and Canada respectively.
TABLE
| PART ONE | ||
|---|---|---|
State/Country #1: _________USA_________________________ | State/Country #2: _______CANADA___________________________ | |
| Policy: | ||
| Policy name | Mass Criminalization | Arrest without Warrant |
| Date policy was enacted | April 9 th 1980 | March 9, 2015 |
| Problem Definition: | ||
| How did the policymakers define (view) the problem? | The policy definition was based on the reduction of the increasing rate of criminal activities in USA, especially the increase in illegal activities perpetrated by the illegal immigrants in the country. | High rate of criminal activities and violence which disrupt peace formed the basis of the definition of this policy. |
| History: | ||
| What relevant social, cultural, and economic factors at the time the policy was developed may have called the policymakers’ attention to the problem and may have impacted what the policy looks like? | Massive immigrants in USA increase rate of crime increase rate of drug abuse and usage culture erosion | Increase violence in the country Increase in criminal activities Increase rate of death due to criminal activities. culture erosion |
| Values: | ||
| Political leaning of each state/country | The political rule in this county is based on the principle of law adherence. | |
| Prioritized values of each state/country | Law obedience | Low obedience |
| Policy Goals: | ||
| Stated goals of the policy (what the policymakers stated the policy should achieve) | To reduce in USA such as drug abuse, illegal immigration, theft and many others. | To bring about a peaceful coexistence in the country. |
PART ONE, CONTINUED:
Briefly explain why you chose the state or country you selected as a comparison (does it have a positive or negative reputation in this area; hold a differing value base that you expect to impact the policy in some way; has extensive experience dealing with the problem, etc.)
USA and Canada was the period in this article due to the fact that the two countries have taken a stern acts on the implementation of these policies. In fact, due to the fact that mass criminalization is in action in USA, the country leads in the number of arrest in the world.
References
Ackerman, A. R., & Furman, R. (2013). The criminalization of immigration: Contexts and consequences . Carolina Academic Press.
Corradi, S. M. (2012). Be Reasonable: Limit Warrantless Smart Phone Searches to Gant's Justification for Searches Incident to Arrest. Case W. Res. L. Rev. , 63 , 943.
Schoenfeld, H. (2012). The war on drugs, the politics of crime, and mass incarceration in the United States. J. Gender Race & Just. , 15 , 315.
Skolnik, T. (2015). Improving the Current Law of Warrantless, Cellphone Searches after R v Fearon. RJT ns , 49 , 825.
| PART TWO | ||
|---|---|---|
| State/Country #1: __________________________________ | State/Country #2: __________________________________ | |
| Policy Description: | ||
| “ Target Population”: | The policy target criminals and also aims at reducing rate of crime in the country. Court of law determines its legitimacy | Policy target criminals too, it aims at ensuring peace in the country. |
| Populations eligible for services and benefits the policy provides | ||
| Populations not eligible for services and benefits the policy provides | ||
| How is eligibility determined? | ||
| What the policy provides: | ||
Specific “benefits”/rewards/ services explicitly provided to the target population | ||
| Specific resources or opportunities explicitly provided to the target the population | ||
| Specific requirements, restrictions or penalties explicitly placed on the target population | ||
| Specific protections explicitly provided to the target population | ||
| Specific limits (or criteria) placed on these “benefits”, rewards, services, resources, opportunities, requirements, restrictions, penalties | ||
| Policy Instruments: | The policy is induced and mandated in the country. It is mandated that illegal activities must reduce in the country by all means. | Policy is induced in the country Peaceful coexistence is being induced in the people in the country. |
| Which policy instrument(s) (mandates, inducements, capacity-building, and system-changing) is being enforced and/or used? | ||
| Briefly describe how the specific policy instrument(s) is being used | ||
| Service Delivery: | National agency through delegating orders to drug and immigration agencies and other bodies which are within the frame work of the policy. | National agency through collaboration with the peace and security department in the country. |
| Which agency(is) is responsible for implementing the policy? | ||
| How does the agency make sure that the policy is implemented as designed? | ||
| Financing: | Federal government provide finance | National government provide finance |
| Where does the money to carry out this policy come from? | ||
| Time frame: | No specific ending date | No specific date it will end |
| Is there a “sunset” date at which the policy is supposed to end or be reauthorized? | ||
| Any additional information necessary to understand how the policy works? | The policy has been put more restriction on drug use and immigration | The policy is only executed by piece officers alone. |
| Intended and Unintended Consequences: | ||
| Identify several major consequences of the policy that have been identified in each state/country | high number of arrest high rate of complains | increase peace coexistence |
References
Ackerman, A. R., & Furman, R. (2013). The criminalization of immigration: Contexts and consequences . Carolina Academic Press.
Corradi, S. M. (2012). Be Reasonable: Limit Warrantless Smart Phone Searches to Gant's Justification for Searches Incident to Arrest. Case W. Res. L. Rev. , 63 , 943.
Schoenfeld, H. (2012). The war on drugs, the politics of crime, and mass incarceration in the United States. J. Gender Race & Just. , 15 , 315.
Skolnik, T. (2015). Improving the Current Law of Warrantless, Cellphone Searches after R v Fearon. RJT ns , 49 , 825.
