Criminal Justice

#1

The most significant communication error occurred between the office clerk who placed the record of the indictment on Mr. Johnson’s file and the officers who authorized his release from prison. This situation and another incident involving a four-time-convicted rapist being released likely occurred as a result of gross negligence by the Viking Correctional Center. However, analyzing this situation more deeply rather than pointing blame, the issue probably occurred as a result of multiple individuals at both the Bardolph County State Attorney’s office and the Viking Correctional Center failing to double-check or ensure all guidance was adhered to properly address the release of inmates and the acknowledgment of additional indictments.

There is a definitive difference in implicit and explicit tasks, and issues like the one mentioned in the case study occur due to individuals and organizations dictating their actions strictly on explicit tasking. Although the system may have explicitly advised the Viking Correctional Center to release Mr. Johnson, implicitly, the correctional center, as well as the authorizing officers, should have done their due diligence prior to actioning the explicit task. Adam and Sawhney (2019) Communication within an organization can be effective when both the formal and informal organizational channels of communication are supportive. These channels can be supplemented by the managers with the use of informal channels to gather and disseminate information (p. 260).

Although communication can be taken at face value and should be between people in positions of authority and their subordinates, additional information should also be reviewed by individuals prior to actioning their superior’s directive. If an additional task can be completed that ensures certainty within a decision, it should be followed so long as it does not veer from their superior’s intent. People often seek to do precisely what they have been tasked with to move on to the next task without stopping to ensure that all factors have been evaluated. This admittedly slows the process of task completion. Still, in many cases, especially the one mentioned, it potentially saves additional work on the back end and ensures no one is liable for negligence.

#2

I would argue that the penitentiary would be held accountable for the failure to incorporate their internal processes. The inadvertent release was the result of their failure to adhere to procedures and their ineffective communication within the interagency. The situation could have been prevented if the prison had been ensuring that the prisoner attended their proceedings, had improved the process for final release processing, and maintained open communication with the district attorney’s office. Life can be jeopardized when communication fails to occur frequently and promptly. This is notably true for agencies in the field that respond to emergencies, rather than merely incarcerations (Allen, 2019).

Additionally, the district attorney is partially responsible. It appears that the process of sending letters of complaint regarding the prison system’s shortcomings is became ineffective, and more radical measures should have been implemented to address the communication breakdown. Fortunately, the Federal Prison Oversight Act has been recently enacted by the legislature, which has established a law regarding prison oversight. This bill guarantees compliance and establishes independent supervision from the prison. This will be overseen by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which will prevent the occurrence of systematic issues and ensure that the prisons are held accountable (ACLU, 2024).

I am of the opinion that the error could have been prevented if the prison system had been held accountable. Nevertheless, I also believe that an additional measure of checks and balances, such as verification with agencies, should still require prior to the parole of a prisoner. If the District Attorney is conducting additional investigations on an inmate and an entry has not been made, verification with their office that a short-term hold was not required. should be made. This could occur as the ultimate release authority, or the final approval authority. A further alternative to rectify the communication failure and guarantee that the prison has received the notifications from the district attorney is a form of read receipts. The prison will be obligated to respond to the district attorney within a specified number of days of the indictment being sent. Additionally, I believe that penalties or fees should be implemented in the event of noncompliance. In summary, interagency collaboration is essential to guarantee the public’s protection to the fullest extent (USDOJ, 2018).

#3

By developing and following clear communication standards, the prosecutor’s office and the prison may ensure that all pertinent information is delivered accurately and swiftly between agencies. This is only one of the important tactics involved in integrating service quality into their replies. Frequent staff training on legal obligations, best practices, and efficient communication can raise the standard of service. It is possible to guarantee that employees adhere to policies and procedures by putting accountability mechanisms in place, such as audits and performance reviews. Technology, like integrated case management systems, can simplify procedures and lower the possibility of mistakes. Regular meetings between the jail and the prosecutor’s office can help to guarantee that all matters are handled swiftly and that the objectives and protocols of both organizations are in line. The public, crime victims, defendants and convicts, law enforcement organizations, and the legal system are the main clientele of the prosecutor’s office and the prison.