Not so many cases get the justice required under the law. The attorneys judge cases without figuring in the meaning and the rationale behind which justice implies (Hine, Porter, Westera, Alpert & Allen, 2018). However, justice is a concept that emphasizes the law, ethics, equity, fairness and concerning the human rights of the involved parties. Theories of justices pinpoint the practice to the virtuous organization of social institutions. Conversely, these institutions are run by personnel, including the attorney general. The attorney general is the chief adviser of the executive, making up a state or a country. Their decision is taken as the final judgement. In New Jersey, the attorney general has the responsibility of managing the administration of the law department and public safety. The document, however, looks into the use of Force Policy procedures by the attorney general in New Jersey. In doing these, the paper examines the overview of the policies, evaluates the policies and procedures and also recommends suggestions for improvement onto the force policy in Ney Jersey Attorney General's operations.
Overview of Force Policy in New Jersey
New Jersey has been practicing use Force Policy after a committee in the state revised new Jersey's policies and found an overhaul in the exercise of criminal justice (Obasogie & Newman, 2017, p.281). However, the policy was delegated to the law enforcing practitioners in improving and reducing crimes in the state. All the same, law enforcers abstractly misunderstand the policy rather than following its guidelines and provisions. The Force Policy incorporates authority by the law enforcers to use force when necessary. It also decrees the law enforcers to act responsibly to the law abiders. However, the policy adds on to equip the enforcers with more restraint practice on the policy (Obasogie & Newman, 2017, p.282). Even though the law enforcers were assigned to use the policy, they needed to uphold it as a last resort in case all other means get exhausted. Well, according to the New Jersey criminal justice, these law personnel have the responsibility to report any illegality in fostering the force policy to improve its drill. The New attorney general, however, advocates that the enforcement officers should prevent occurrences of illegal practice about the law, according to Obasogie and Newman (2017, p.280). It may sound unusual for an officer to use force in practicing the law to those who lack professional ethics that also is punishable according to the law. Nevertheless, still, the use of policy calls for revamping roles in critical decision making. Situations may be challenging to tackle, but as the law enforcer making an informed decision necessitates to save the society safe (Hine, Porter, Westera, Alpert & Allen, 2018). However, the circumstance must also be unique and must involve sound judgement. The office of the attorney general approves of the use of the force policy but as a last resort.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Evaluation of The Policy Procedures
Recently the Attorney general criticized the behavior and practice of law enforcers in regards to the force policy. Even though its guidelines were clearly stated, but there is still clear evidence in the use of brutality in almost all cases (Obasogie & Newman, 2017, p.280). However, the office of the attorney general in New Jersey operates under accountability and transparency paradigms. Through research into the law ministry, the state attorney finally affirmed that only a handful are evidence to be using brutal force. These is following the law that the force policy has limitations in its practice. According to the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, the policy is not justifiable if there is no identification of the person performing the policy (Obasogie & Newman, 2017,287). However, the officer may use force for protection or prevent an escape. The office of the attorney clearly states that in case of the use of the authority, then immediate notifications and reporting necessitates. The procedures hold when the county law enforcement agencies notify the prosecutor and the division of criminal justice. In doing these, all the law enforces are arraigned in abiding by the force policy. However, in new jersey, the law enforcers are also mandated to undertake annual training on the lawful appropriations and practice on the law-abiding by ethics. The attorney general even charged seven of the law officers in Peterson under force policy for solicitation of money (Obasogie & Newman, 2017). Even more, the office of the attorney general prompts the police department to have a license for its operations; in these cases, any of their wrongful misdeeds would be easily guided by the code of ethics and criminal justice in their actions.
Strengths and Weakness of the Force Policy Procedures
Initially, the policing department provided reports that were brief on the use of force in files at the base. But this was known to be evaded by most of the law enforcers in New Jersey. However, the state attorney advocated for reporting on the portal, which links directly to the office of criminal justice would curb evasions and unlawful practice. For instance, the case of the arrest of the two women on different occasions in the state. A police officer intentionally assaulted the women on the various arrests. These alone are proof of the rote in the practice of law ethics. However, no records were affirming the case, and the reason, the officer, received suits on assault. According to the Criminal code, defining the purpose of arrests necessitates and, if not specified, it ceases to be an arrest (Obasogie & Newman, 2017, p.287). However, when the person desists from the arrest, the force policy insinuates after defining the reason for the arrest. The practices by the attorney office necessitate improving the law department and also fostering peace in the community. The brutal arrests in the state had dehumanized societies to disregard arrests and even assault police officers as revenge. Nevertheless, the policy procedures natures the state to be peace abiding without brutality in practicing the law. However, one of the weaknesses of the force policy is that the criminal may outweigh the law enforcer even though it may be against the law. However, the force policy prompts for many lawsuits against the police department because any assault by the police officer dictates for punishment. Moreover, handling and practicing the policy requires in-depth scrutiny of the situations to avoid lethal engagements and provocations.
Suggestions for Improvements
Before any officer administers the policy, they must have undergone through the guidelines of the force policy, its impacts and limitations. The law enforcer must adhere and accept the consequences after that the practice. Until then, this calls for training of the law enforcement officers in every aspect of force policy. Training necessitates the use of the firearm and the use of deadly force. Before practicing the policy, it is also essential to report to the head office and let the operator or the base commander take charge of the decisions made in the field. In doing these, there would be minimal or no lawsuits confirming to brutality in treatment. Well, when the suspect refuses arrest after the definition of the criminal practice, then this calls for the use of the policy. However, Hine, Porter, Westera, Alpert and Allen (2018). depicts investigations in the policy and details the misdeeds by the law officers and the procedures that the state attorney enforces in adhering to the force policy. Obasogie and Newman (2017), on the other hand, uses examples in defining force policy practice. Well, the sources are credible since they involve new methods.
References
Hine, K., Porter, L., Westera, N., Alpert, G., & Allen, A. (2018). Exploring Police Use of Force Decision-Making Processes and Impairments Using a Naturalistic Decision-Making Approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 45 (11), 1782-1801. doi: 10.1177/0093854818789726
Obasogie, O., & Newman, Z. (2017). Police Brutality, Use of Force Policies, and Public Health. American Journal of Law & Medicine , 43 (2-3), 279-295. doi: 10.1177/0098858817723665
