Criminal Justice Policy

Policy Comparison
Archie M. Parks
CJA/364
June 21, 2013
Stacie Hummel

Policy Comparison
Both the crime control model and the consensus and due process model have significant affects on Criminal justice policy. For the purpose of this paper the federal drug testing policy as well as the Supreme Court ruling that bars protesting in front of the court house will be examined. A comparison of both policies with regards to the effects the crime control model and the consensus and due process model have on courts, corrections and police will be given. In addition the difference between state and federal applications of the policies will be described as well as a personal view on each policy and how effective the policy is will be rendered.
Crime Control Model versus Consensus Due Process Model Both policies are implemented the same because they are government funded programs However, the contention appears with regard to who each policy is intended to help. The crime control model is intended to reduce crime by giving greater power to police and the courts. The primary focus of the consensus due process model is the protection and awareness of rights and liberties for individuals by reducing government powers. Both policies receive funds from the government and act on behalf of the government. The difference is that the due process model would prefer less government involvement and greater attention and focus placed on the benefits of Private enterprise. Primarily the goals of both models can be categorized into two very distinct missions: (1) the need to enforce the law and maintain social order, and (2) the need to protect people from injustice (Perron, 2012).
Policies
a. Mandatory Drug Testing: Drug testing in the work place for federal employees began on April 11, 1988 ("Mandatory guidelines for," 2008). Since the early inception of drug testing it has become a topic of debate. Is it right or wrong? Is it constitutional? Are the rights of American Citizens being violated? These are all valid questions that will be discussed in detail below. According to the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 general drug testing is not required by law. The exception to this would be jobs that fall under state and federal guidelines which require mandatory testing. The mandatory testing policy requires each test to be reviewed by a Medical Officer. Each test must test for 5 key substances to include cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine, cannabinoids and amphetamines and must be conducted by a certified Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) facility. While private sector companies are not required to follow SAMHSA guidelines many do to ensure that legally they are correct in their procedures. In certain situations the federal policy must negotiated, implemented and greed upon through collective bargaining. b. Supreme Court Policy on Protests in Plaza: Recent changes to restrictions associated with protesting and demonstrations conducted on the plaza in front of the supreme courthouse were issued by the Supreme Court. Previously a federal judge revised the law by reducing the applicability of a law that was created in 1949 that barred demonstrations and protest on or around the grounds of the Supreme Court. The law was challenged by a student from Maryland who arrested in 2011 for using a sign to protest on the Supreme Court Plaza. Lawyers for the Supreme Court informed the federal judge hearing the student’s case that the law was needed to ensure visitors of the Supreme Court could have access without being impeded in their efforts. The Judge ultimately ruled against the Supreme Court stating it was a violation of first amendment rights. However two days later the Supreme Court issued a new policy modify the wording slightly to cover specific concerns. The new law approved by the Chief Justice of the United States requires visitors to maintain suitable order and decorum within the Supreme Court building and grounds. It also bars demonstrations, which is defined as picketing, speech making, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other forms of conduct that is reasonably likely to draw a crowd (Liptak, 2013).
Role of Law Enforcement, Courts and Corrections Law enforcements role with respect to the policies chosen for review is very minimal. The drug policy effects law enforcement in several ways and limits the number of times an officer could have experimented with drugs prior to being hired. In addition law enforcement officers must make themselves available for mandatory periodic drug testing. The new Supreme Court ruling affects police in the way that they respond. When dealing with civil liberties and protest officers must always be aware of their surroundings. Increased personnel may be needed to ensure public safety. The courts role in both policies is significant and dictates the direct policy that is currently being implemented. Federal guidelines states that federal employees are subject to drug testing and the Supreme Court upheld these decisions. In both cases competent attorneys disputed constitutional issues that had to be resolved by The Supreme Court. In reviewing the policies there is no significant affect on corrections that can be determined by the implementation of either policy. In both policies a difference between federal and state application of policy can be found. When discussing the mandatory drug testing in the work place he difference can be found in who is required to be tested. Federal employees must be tested while state testing for non federal positions is left up to the discretion of the employer. The new Supreme Court policy ruling was created for a specific situation but could have a trickle effect on other issues. Now that precedence has been set other areas with similar issues can reference this Supreme Court decision to help prove their point.
Opinion, effectiveness and conclusion I personally like both policies and feel that drug testing is necessary. I do not think federal employees (or any employee for that matter) should engage in drug use. Drugs can impair the decision making process and place officers at risk. Federal employees are held to a high standard and drug use can create character issues that could manifest again later. The Supreme Court ruling is needed to bring order and eliminate chaos to a high profile area. While first amendment violations are a concern I believe that protests can still be held from a safe distance off of Supreme Court property. Protest can be effective without intrusion into personal or private space. Both policies can be very effective and the effectiveness can be measured in the application successful management of both policies. Drug testing can successfully identify and eliminate workers who do not meet established guidelines saving employers funds and preventing future liability and embarrassment. It is important that citizens feel safe, by establishing policy regarding protest law enforcement is prepared and knows how to react to all situations.
Conclusion
The crime control model and consensus due process model have been very effective in different situations and different time periods. Early Criminal justice policy makers utilized the crime control model while recent trends have switched back to utilizing the due process policy. Both policies mentioned above raise first amendment rights questions. However, in both policies the United States Supreme Court ruled that first amendment rights had not been violated. Both policies have had minimal impact on policing, courts and corrections and have been very effective. In my opinion the polices discussed above are efficient and are necessary to manage those specific areas of concern.

Reference
Liptak, A. (2013, June 13). Supreme Court issues new rule barring protests on plaza. Retrieved from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/supreme-court-issues-new-rule-barring-protests-on-plaza/
Perron, B. (2012). The crime controls and due process models. Retrieved from http://www.defenseinvestigator.com/article10.html
(2008). Mandatory guidelines for federal. Federal Register, 73(228), 71858. Retrieved from www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-25/pdf/E8-26726.pdf