2 part assignment

timer Asked: Apr 20th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $15

Question Description

there are 2 parts-- different format for each part along with attachments for part 2.. separate part 1 and part 2 total work around 1200 words min

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PART 1 – BLUEBOOK FORMAT WITH FOOTNOTES- 500 WORDS There are numerous rights a defendant receives at trial. Discuss, in detail, two of those rights and explain why they are crucial to ensuring a fair trial. Part 2- answer 2 questions and use articles (attached) where needed.. 750 words TOTAL- with 2 APA SOURCES 1. What are Independent and Dependent variables? How do they work together in a hypothesis? Using your own research project, highlight what it is that you want to study. Please give one example of a hypothesis using one independent and on dependent variable from your research proposal. Please write the hypothesis as an If/Then statement! 2. Briefly review the research design for either of the two assigned articles for this week. What do you think about how the research was done? Assess and critique the research design. Initial responses are to be original in content and demonstrate a thorough analysis of the topic. Include at least two properly cited peer reviewed references. The http://tpj.sagepub.com/ Prison Journal Controlling a Jail Population by Partially Closing the Front Door : An Evaluation of a ''Summons in Lieu of Arrest'' Policy Terry L. Baumer and Kenneth Adams The Prison Journal 2006 86: 386 DOI: 10.1177/0032885506291036 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/86/3/386 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Pennsylvania Prison Society Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/86/3/386.refs.html >> Version of Record - Aug 8, 2006 What is This? Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com by guest on May 1, 2013 Controlling a Jail Population by Partially Closing the Front Door The Prison Journal Volume 86 Number 3 September 2006 386-402 © 2006 Sage Publications 10.1177/0032885506291036 http://tpj.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com An Evaluation of a “Summons in Lieu of Arrest” Policy Terry L. Baumer Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis Kenneth Adams University of Central Florida, Orlando This study reports on an evaluation of a strategy designed to reduce crowding of a county jail. The local judiciary sought to reduce the jail population by ordering local police agencies to issue a summons rather than arrest individuals accused of seven misdemeanor offenses. The study compares all cases booked during the first 8 months of the policy with all cases booked during the same months in the previous year. The results indicate that the policy was implemented, that it did reduce the intake population, and that there were minimal side effects; however, the potential impact was considerably overestimated in the planning stage. Keywords: jails; overcrowding; summons; alternatives to arrest D uring the past two and one half decades, correctional populations in the United States have experienced exceptional growth. Between 1980 and 2004, the total number of people under correctional supervision increased by 280% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Although all forms of corrections experienced increases, the largest changes occurred in the most restrictive and costly dispositions: prisons and jails. During this same Authors’ Note: This research was supported by a grant from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. Points of view or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the supporting agency. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November 2003. 386 Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com by guest on May 1, 2013 Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 387 time frame, prison populations increased 345% and jail populations increased 288% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). These dramatic increases have resulted in crowded conditions for both prisons and jails. At the end of 2004, state prisons were operating at 99% of their highest capacity and 115% of their lowest capacity estimates (Harrison & Beck, 2005b). When the lowest capacity estimate for each state is used, all but five states exceeded the 90% guideline established by the American Correctional Association. The situation is similar in local jails. At midyear 2004, 94% of jail capacity was occupied (Harrison & Beck, 2005a). The 50 largest jails in the United States hold approximately 31% of the jail population. At midyear 2004, 20 (40%) of these exceeded their capacity, whereas 33 (66%) were more than 90% full (Harrison & Beck, 2005a). At its broadest level, the dynamics of prison and jail populations are the same. At any given time, the population is a direct function of the number of admissions and the length of stay (see Cushman, 2002; Pretrial Services Resource Center, 2000). Although the effect of the former is immediate and the effect of the latter delayed by the current length of stay, the final result is the same: Any change to either will result in a corresponding change in the overall population. In this sense, the sources of the dramatic increases in prison and jail populations are conceptually the same. A number of authors have identified policy changes that affected one or both of these factors for prison populations (Blumstein, 1995; Tonry, 1990). The factors that drive admissions and length of stay, however, are quite different for prisons and jails. Much of the prison population is legislatively driven. In any given jurisdiction the type of sentences (determinate– indeterminate), type of release (discretionary–mandatory), length of sentence, extent of credit time, mandatory minimums, sentence enhancements (three strikes), and a host of other factors are largely controlled by the relevant sentencing statutes. As a result, significant reductions in prison populations must rely on statutory changes (or administrative sleight of hand), which are difficult to come by. Jail populations, on the other hand, are potentially much more amenable to change. Nationally, slightly more than 60% of jail inmates are pretrial detainees (Harrison & Beck, 2005a) who either have been denied bail or do not have the resources to obtain release through bail. Most, but not all, of those individuals serving sentences in jail were convicted of misdemeanor or minor felony offenses. Arrest policies and bail standards are generally established at the local level by police agencies and the county courts. Similarly, misdemeanor sentences seldom suffer the constraints and mandates of their Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com by guest on May 1, 2013 388 The Prison Journal felony counterparts. This leaves the nature of the disposition potentially much more open to negotiations among the interested parties. As a result, local officials can manipulate both the number of admissions and the length of stay through changes in local policies (see Cunniff, 2002; Cushman, 2002; Pretrial Services Resource Center, 2000). This article reports on one approach by a county to control its local jail population. This jurisdiction focused on a “front door” strategy (Blumstein, 1995) designed to reduce admissions to the county jail system. The executive committee of the local judiciary ordered police agencies to issue a summons to appear rather than arrest individuals accused of seven misdemeanor offenses. At initiation of the policy, it was estimated that this change might reduce admissions to the county jail system by approximately 20% to 25%. If successful, this would have a substantial effect on the local jail population. Background Like many others around the United States, the county under study had a long history of litigation concerning the county jail. In 1972, inmates filed suit in federal court seeking relief from the overcrowded condition in the jail. Three years later, in 1975, the judge assigned to the case imposed a cap on the jail population. The county added capacity to the jail on at least three separate occasions, but by 1999 the crowding had backed up to include the county lockup facility. In that year, the population in the county lockup was added to the existing litigation, and later that year the federal court imposed a population cap of 213 on the lockup facility. Two years later, with the mutual assent of the county and the plaintiffs, the cap was raised to 297. The litigation continued with regular reviews and hearings by the federal court, but the county was doing little to abate the chronic crowding in the facility. In April 2002, the federal judge handling the case held county officials in contempt for their failure to comply with the agreed-on cap of 297 and indicated that financial penalties, and potentially contempt citations, would be imposed for violations of the cap after May 1. The county was now on notice that something must be done to control the population of the county lockup or they would pay the price. In response to the federal judge’s action, the executive committee of the county court system, noting “its obligation to assist the Sheriff and other county officials in complying with the Federal Court Order and to maintain public safety within our community,” issued a court order on April 18, 2002, designed to help control the population of the county lockup facility. Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com by guest on May 1, 2013 Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 389 This order noted the need to comply with the population cap and, pursuant to that goal, established a “summons in lieu of arrest” policy for seven nonviolent, misdemeanor offenses: possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, driving with a suspended license, operating a vehicle never having received a license, prostitution, patronizing a prostitute, and conversion (generally shoplifting). The order did not apply to individuals charged with the felony versions of these offenses. This order contained two substantive provisions. The first ordered the sheriff to advise all law enforcement agencies operating within the county to issue a summons (a ticket) in lieu of arrest for these offenses. This applied to any combination of these seven offenses and any nonarrestable infraction or ordinance violations that might be included in the same incident. If the individuals had any other criminal charges or an outstanding warrant (even for one of the eligible offenses), the sheriff could still accept and book them into the lockup just like any other criminal offense. Because the above order was contrary to long-standing policies within the county and many of its constituent police departments, the executive committee anticipated a potential for noncompliance: Simply telling the police agencies within the county to stop arresting individuals for these offenses probably was not going to be very effective. To ensure compliance with the new policy, the second provision ordered the sheriff to stop accepting, at the lockup facility, individuals charged only with the above offenses. Thus, if a particular department or individual officer arrested an individual for one of the eligible charges, the sheriff’s department was instructed to turn them away by refusing to book them into the lockup facility. The court ordered the sheriff to advise all agencies within the county of this policy. Although no formal analysis was conducted prior to issuance of the order, it appears that a substantial impact on the lockup population was anticipated. The order noted, “During an average week, the lock-up receives between 180-250 individuals charged with [the above] non-violent misdemeanor offenses.” No indication was given as to whether the policy was expected to apply to all of these individuals or some subset of them. Assuming the former, the anticipated impact on the intake population would have been a reduction of between 26 and 36 individuals per day. Given that the county booked approximately 142 people per day (slightly fewer than 1,000 per week), the policy offered the potential to reduce the intake population by 18% to 25%. The impact on the total lockup population would depend on the length of stay for these individuals. For example, if prior to implementation of the new policy, the individuals charged with these minor offenses were booked Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com by guest on May 1, 2013 390 The Prison Journal out within 24 hours, the impact would be between 26 and 36 people. This would be a reduction of approximately 10% (10% of 297 = 29.7). However, if prior to implementation of the policy these individuals stayed 2 days, the lockup population would be reduced by between 52 and 72 people (20%). Under any of these scenarios, the projected impact of the court order would be substantial. The following analysis will focus on three areas related to the policy. First, implementation of the policy will be reviewed. An initial analysis will assess the actual size of the target population as defined by the court order and interpreted by the sheriff’s department employees at the lockup. These estimates will form the outer boundaries of potential for the outcome analysis. This will be followed by an analysis of the extent of implementation for the policy. Next, the primary impact of the policy on the county lockup facility will be assessed. Given that the policy was explicitly designed to divert individuals charged with the seven misdemeanor offenses from lockup, the reduction in number of lockup bookings will be investigated. As noted above, the effect of the policy on the overall lockup population depended on both the extent of implementation and the length of stay for the target population. The impact of the policy on length of stay and total “bed days” will be assessed. Finally, secondary outcomes of the new policy will be reviewed. Although the court order issued by the county executive committee did not address possible secondary outcomes for the new policy, a number of plausible hypotheses are possible. For example, it would be reasonable to anticipate an increase in the failure to appear (FTA) rate for the target cases. In addition, it might be hypothesized that the new policy would affect case disposition in a number of ways. The analysis will look at the number of cases without a disposition at least 10 months later and the nature of the disposition. Method The county stored information for all criminal cases on a mainframe case management system. The researchers worked with a county programmer to generate cases from the first 8 months of the new policy period and a comparison group selected from the same period of the preceding year. The time frame was dictated by a policy revision made by the county. From the time of implementation on April 19, 2002, criminal justice officials were under some pressure to rescind the order. In particular, some neighborhood groups objected strenuously to the issuance of citations for Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com by guest on May 1, 2013 Baumer, Adams / Summons in Lieu of Arrest 391 prostitution. They argued that issuing tickets for prostitution did nothing to reduce prostitution in their areas of the city. During the summer and fall of 2002, the policy became one of the issues in the election for county sheriff, with the eventually winner calling the county a “laughingstock” for issuing citations for misdemeanor prostitution. The judges revised the order by removing prostitution from the list of eligible offenses on December 20, 2002—almost exactly 8 months after the original order. The present study focused on cases originating during the initial 8-month period when all seven offenses were included. Selection of cases was the same for both 2002 and the comparison group from the previous year. For the primary analytic files, all cases that included at least 1 of the 7 charges and that fell between April 19 and December 20 were selected. The files included information on all charges associated with this case (level, type), date of booking, date of disposition, nature of disposition for all charges, and basic characteristics of the individual charged in the case (race, sex, date of birth). Because case was the unit of analysis, individuals might be included multiple times. This generated 6,110 cases from the target year and 6,221 for the comparison year. Because all cases occurring in the county during the sampling frame were included and it cannot be inferred that these cases represent a random sample of cases in other jurisdictions, no statistical tests of significance are reported. Results Eligible Cases and Level of Implementation The general parameters of the target population are presented in Table 1. The number of cases with any of the seven misdemeanor offenses declined slightly from 6,221 for the comparable period of the previous year to 6,110 during the 8-month study period. However, cases covered by the summons in lieu of arrest order increased from 58.6% to 65.8% of all cases with one or more of the seven charges. This amounted to an increase of 379 cases in which individuals were charged with one, or more, of the misdemeanor target offenses and no other criminal offenses. Overall, 4,022 cases were potentially eligible for a citation only during the first 8 months of the policy, whereas 3,643 would have been eligible during the same 8 months in the prior year. The above findings indicate that the potential impact of the change in policy was considerably lower than suggested in the court order. The original order noted that the target cases accounted for between 180 and 250 cases per Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com by guest on May 1, 2013 392 The Prison Journal Table 1 Target Charges and Eligible Cases Prior to Policy Eligible cases Not eligible cases Total During Policy n % n % 3,643 2,578 6,221 58.6 41.4 100.0 4,022 2,088 6,110 65.8 34.2 100.0 week. When translated to the 8-month study period (243 days), this estimate would be between 6,245 and 8,675 cases. The total number of cases with at least one of these charges (6,110) was fairly close to the lesser of the two estimates. Because the total number of cases is similar for each period, the suggestion is that the lower estimate of 180 per week was actually the more accurate of the two. However, when cases with other criminal charges are excluded, the number of eligible cases (4,022) was only 65.8% of this estimate during the study period and only 58.6% in the comparable period the preceding year. This overestimate of the target population limited the potential impact of the policy change to less than two thirds the original estimate. Although the target population was smaller than anticipated, with full implementation the summons in lieu of arrest policy could still substantially reduce the number of people booked into the county lockup. Four types of booking were possible for the eligible cases: (a) An “outright” booking occurred when the officer made an arrest and the defendant was brought to lockup, (b) a “summons” booking occurred when the officer issued a citation and the defendant was booked when he or she appeared in court, (c) a “warrant” booking occurred when the defendant was arrested on a warrant for one of the targeted offenses, and (d) “no booking” occurred when the defendant was cited by the officer but failed to appear and was never arrested on the subsequent warrant. Cases subject to the summons in lieu of arrest policy could be any of the latter three types, although it explicitly sought to eliminate outright bookings for the targeted offenses. Table 2 presents the type of booking for eligible cases. This table shows that under the summons in lieu of arrest policy, only 20.2% of the eligible cases experie ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: New York University

Hello buddyPlease check the attached files.

Name 1

Rights of a defendant
A defendant in a trial has numerous rights. One of those rights is right to remain silent. This right
is found in the Fifth Amendment rights which protect the defendant from self-incrimination.
There are two rights under the Fifth Amendment and these are the right to remain silent and the
right against double jeopardy. The right to double jeopardy protects the defendant from being
tried for the same offense twice. The right we are discussing here is the right to remain silent.
This right protects the defendant from self-incrimination. This right starts from the moment the
defendant is arrested and continues throughout the trial. On arrest, the Miranda rights which are
more or less the right to remain silent are read to the arrested person. He or she has the right to
remain silent and anything he or she says will be used against him or her in a court of law.
During the trial, you cannot force the defendant to speak. It is his right to remain silent if he feels
that talking may bring about self-incriminating evidence.
This was first discussed in the Miranda case; Miranda v. Arizona1, the court held that the
defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that anything that he says will be used against
him in a court of law. The defendant was questioned during custodial interrogation and was
found guilty of kidnaping and rape. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution


384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Name 2

cannot use statements stemming out of custodial interrogation unless it can be proven that there
was proper use of procedural safeguards to protect the defendant from self-incrimination.
The second right that a defendant in a court of law has is the right to representation. This stems
from the sixth amendment rights. The sixth amendment rights include the right to a speedy trial,
the right to a public jury trial, and the right to confront witnesses.
On the right to representation, every defendant in a court of law has the right to a legal
representation. You ...

flag Report DMCA

Goes above and beyond expectations !

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors