Ideology in the Criminal Justice System, Article Critique Example

Western civilization is deeply grounded in the belief of the marriage between capitalism and democracy. This is a core ideological difference between the United States and many other countries. The belief in free market capitalism creates an environment where the education system, the medical system, and of course the criminal justice system are all industrialized and the burden of producing quality is placed on the highest bidder, the entrepreneur that shows potential for the largest fiscal returns tends to get the government contract, not the program with most progressive ideas.

Garrison traces the history of the criminal justice system as far back as 1901, when he says the “first year of the National Conference on Criminal Law and Criminology (2009)” was held. He further notes that as an educational discipline the craft of criminal justice did not standout and flourish as a viable profession until 1970. The core problem that Garrison identifies with the relationship between the education system and the Criminal justice system stems from the ideology that drives both students and educators. Most students enter the criminal justice system focused on the dream of gaining employment, while educators are focused producing the highest number of graduates who will become potential officers, or lawyers as not to lose their government funding. The problem is that imbedded in the actually work of criminal justice fields is a requirement for a certain level of moral aptitude and ethics. As criminal justice policy researchers note, “The primary problem, as we see it, is that most criminal justice education is not aimed at debunking myths of crime and criminal justice and instilling ethics in our students (Williams & Robinson, 2004).” They note that there is a desperate need for criminal justice students to learn about more than just the mechanics of police, courts, and corrections. They say that these students who only learn this will not learn how to think for themselves. The concept here is that, “students who do not learn about how the law is made and that it is by definition partial, incomplete, and biased in favor of some interests over others, will not understand the present realities of, including problems with, criminal justice practice in the United States.” The understanding here that the criminal justice system is ideologically flawed from the inside and can only be improved from the inside by those who know the law on a deeper level than just what is taught through standard contemporary criminal justice education.

In regards to the limited ideological concepts of criminal  justice  policy, researchers note the already prejudice and bias trends implanted in the structure of the  language, specifically words that have  “inherent  social  and  moral connotations  such  as  criminals,  delinquency, community  dysfunction, social  isolation, individual and environmental criminogenic factors. Criminologic theories focus on personal and societal  causes of poverty and  crime. Criminal justice policy is geared toward controlling social dysfunction (Garrison, 2009).” This is proof that advancements in Criminal justice policy research must be implemented to counteract policies that have become standard aspects of the criminal justice system, but are ideologically flawed. The authors note that criminal justice research seeks in-depth assessment and analysis of crime and offers strategies for its reduction as well as improvements in how this reduction is executed.

Williams and Robinson believe that since ideological factors tend to be the main driving force that dictate aspects of political, sociological and philosophical developments in society, it only make sense that ideology would be an influential tool in shaping the criminal justice system. Williams and Robinson touch on this when they say, “Criminal justice scholars seldom consider the sociopolitical roots of our systems of criminal justice.  The criminal justice discipline emanated from the sociology and political science disciplines (Willimas & Robinson, 2004).”

The core facets of what makeup society are grounded in ideology. The way people think is based on their social interactions with one another, and the way individuals vote is in turn based on that sociology. The democratic process ultimately puts select politicians in office who propose the legislation that will be enforced by the criminal justice system and it’s all driven by the ideology of the particular social group in power at the time.

Conclusion

In sum, a reaction to the effects market culture as an ideology has on the criminal justice system can been seen in the way the war on drugs, has continued as a policy despite wide spread opposition. The same can be said for criminal justice as a liberal study. The educational system is more concerned with registering as many students as possible for the sake of tuition, as well as supplying the criminal justice system with a new officer pool of enforcers. When there are counter measures implemented to eliminate market culture as the driving ideology fueling the criminal justice educational fields, and law enforcement industries, to better enhance knowledge of the law in regards to ethics and moral practice in enforcement, the system will trend towards being more ethical.

Work Cited

Garrison, H. (2009). The Influence of Research on Criminal Justice Policy Making. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice Vol 4(1)  Retrieved from https://kucampus.kaplan.edu/documentstore/docs09/pdf/picj/vol4/issue1/PICJ_V4N1_Garrison_9_22.pdf

Williams, E. J., & Robinson, M. (2004). Ideology and criminal justice suggestions for a pedagogical model. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(2), Retrieved from http://www.pscj.appstate.edu/ideology.pdf