The primary reason why some people refer to the US criminal justice system as a non-system is the overlapping of its three sections. The above argument stems from the fact that all of the above sections have a distinct culture, ergo, and history that influenced the flow and direction of their development. For example, each state, county, city, and town has unique law enforcement models. These counties, states, and cities also have varied perceptions about the activities that are considered legal or illegal. For example, different cities and states feel that the burning of leaves is legal while others perceive them as unlawful. Whereas these issues may be minor, they show how disjointed the US criminal justice system is, affirming the argument that the US criminal justice system is a non-system. Overall, the lack of a standard approach to dealing with certain aspects of crime contributes to the reference to the US justice system as a non-system.
The judicial process is another aspect used to support the argument that the US criminal justice is a non-system. The primary basis of the argument mentioned above is that the people involved in the court process, such as the judges, attorneys, clerks, court officers, and record keepers who assist in running the process, do so from different perspectives. The above approach contravenes the legal judicial process which is required to be harmonious and guided by the same standards and principles, including the stakeholders' views mentioned above ( Vladimirenko, 2017). The failure of the US court process to act per the guidelines and varying perspectives of the stakeholders can therefore be used to justify the argument that the US justice system is a non-system.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The US corrections process is another issue that has been widely used to support the argument that the US judicial system is a non-system. Among the affected key elements of the US, correction includes prisons, jails, treatment programs, house arrests, halfway houses, and parole services (Bronson and Carson, 2019). Whereas these centers should work harmoniously under the same guidelines, their focus areas vary according to their goals. The different destinations mentioned above can be referred to as non-system because they allow operations outside the set guidelines to meet their unique desires. Overall, the argument about whether the judicial system is a non-system or not depends on an individual’s experience with the system.
The magnitude of the crimes and the level of response by the law enforcers also shapes a community's perception of the system. According to Welsh and Howard (2019), when a crime with a significant magnitude is carelessly handled, society is more likely to affect the justice system negatively. As a result, people are more likely to use the law's weaknesses to perpetrate crimes based on its inherent flaws. The above phenomenon is exacerbated by the criminal justice system's lack of capacity to apply standards measures in handling crimes across varied demographics. For example, the sentencing of murders to death in some states while offering life sentences in others shows a lack of standard application of the law, further supporting the argument that the US judicial system is a non-system.
The handling of misdemeanors is another legal aspect that can support the argument that the US judicial system is a non-system. Among the crimes under this category are overspeeding, vandalism, and trespassing. Although the perpetrators of these crimes are not given jail terms, the extent of the crimes can be used to overrule the provision ( Welsh and Howard, 2019). The disparities in applying the above clauses based on states, cities, and other demographics show a lack of a standard approach, hence justifying the argument that the US judicial system is a non-system.
References
Bronson, J., & Carson, E. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Age , 500 , 400.
Vladimirenko, I. (2017). System Analysis of the Principles of Court Process. Lex Portus , 8 , 27.
Welsh, L., & Howard, M. (2019). Standardization and the production of justice in summary criminal courts: a post-human analysis. Social & Legal Studies , 28 (6), 774-793.
