CRIMINAL JUSTICE 9
Author’s name
Part A
Various approaches have been put in place by governments toaddress issues of difference in the criminal justice system. Theyinclude gender responsiveness, diversepenal assemblages, culturally appropriate programming, and the shadowcarceral states. Part A of this paper seeks to explore thesimilarities, differences, strengths and limitations of two of theseapproaches, the culturally appropriate programming and genderresponsiveness.
Gender responsiveness majorly involves women’s relation tothe criminal justice. The women constitute ten percent of the totalpopulation in prisons. Their number has grown tremendously in thepast twenty years. This finding indicates that the growing number isworrying, citing some flaws in the criminal justice system.Gender-responsive strategies aim attraining, allocation of resources, strategic plan development, andcollaboration with various non-criminal and criminal justice bodies(Bloom, Owen, & Cavington, 2016). On the other hand,culturally appropriate programming focusses on the idea of justicesystems to be more familiar with the perspectives, and knowledge ofdifferent populations based on their culture, and citing thelimitations and blind spots of western cultures. In the 1990s up tothe mid-2000s, the approach was mainly recognizing the differences inculture of the indigenous people, but later, from the mid-2000s, ithas shifted to identifying the populationsthat are diverse in culture, and linguistics (Scott,2012 p.10).
Gender responsiveness mainly addresses matters ofdifferences in gender affecting women in the criminal justice system.For instance, women are prone to various forms of abuse such assexual abuse, drug abuse, and general brutality in correctionalfacilities. Another concern that this practice addresses alsoincludes women addiction, which constitutes twenty-fiveto forty percent of the total addiction cases. Addiction damages arevery extensive and self-limiting to women.
Conversely, culturally appropriate programmingencompasses the address of criminal justice issues that affect thedifferences in various cultures. For example, the culture of theaboriginals of Canada was incorporated into the constitutional systemthrough the establishment of native healinglodges. Their beliefs, values, and traditions were considered in theprogram to provide services that cater for the offenders. InSwitzerland, there was consideration of the Maori culture (Waldram,1997).
There are differences in the bodies that manage programs,which address the two approaches. The National Institute onDrug Abuse (NIDA), and the Center for Sustenance Abuse Treatment(CSAT) tackle drug abuse problems affecting the incarcerated women.The task is unique to them thus, preventingoverlap to handling cultural differences in the criminal justicesystem. Culturally appropriate programs are also tasked to differentbodies that are not allowed to extend their services to genderissues. These organizations are verydistinct, and have different budgetaryallocations (Russel &Carlton, 2013 p 482-487). They also have different guidingprinciples towards achieving their mandated task.
Gender-responsive strategies employ gender,environment, relationships, community, economic status, socialstatus, services, and supervision. Ingender, there is an insistence on the factthat there is a difference in handling the two genders in thecriminal justice world. The environment principle stresses that asafe, respectful, and dignifying environment has to begenerated for women. Development of programs, policies,and practices that promote a healthy relationship between the womanand her children, significant others and family arevital. The services and supervision principle emphasizes on theaddress of women’s mental health, trauma, substance abuse and otherafflictions through the establishment ofintegrated and relevant services, and scrutiny. Developing women’seconomic and social standards through the improvement of theirability to be self-sufficient promotes the reduction of criminalityamong them. This stand is established inthe principle of supervision and services. The community should becollaborative and supportive to the women who have criminal charges.The principle of community support expounds on it. On the other hand,culturally appropriate programming focusses on the rule of equalityof all cultures. The approach seeks to incorporate different culturalvalues into the criminal justice system sothat every offender is tried with fairness, because cultures nurturea person’s behavior, and encounter with the law (Moffat,2015 p.135-145).
Another notable difference is about gender. Genderresponsiveness only focusses on women, whereas culturally appropriateprogramming bases on both the males and females. Culture affects boththe sexes, and so, it is imprudent todistinguish them. Gender responsiveness involves tackling thediscriminative nature that the criminal justice systems haveinflicted on women.
The two approaches also have similarities. They are bothholistic in managing the problems of the involved parties, gender,and culture. For instance, gender responsiveness looks at all issuessurrounding women in the justice system. These issues include thephysical abuse, spiritual beliefs, environmental factors, and socialdiscrimination, among others. A culturally appropriate programmingalso tackles holistic issues that affect culture aboutcriminal justice differences. They include values, beliefs,behaviors, wars, environmental reactions, and others.
Moreover, in both approaches, strategies are aimed atproviding guidance and support. The involved agencies such as NIDAand CSAT have a significant role inensuring that criminal justice agencies provide fair trials, andinitiate support programs. They also prevent social vices such asdrug abuse, sexual harassment, cultural discrimination, unfairtrials, and others (Haugen & Musser, 2009 p.71).
Both approaches aim at a standard course,and that is to solve the problems of differences in the criminaljustice systems. They are also similar regarding the agent whopropagates them, which is the government. From the government, theyboth get financial maintenance.
On another perspective, gender responsiveness has variousstrengths. First, it promotes justice to women offenders. All along,women have been treated unfairly, and ithas been extended to the judicialprocesses. This approach has created a difference in the way they areprosecuted. It empowers women on issues of criminality andprosecution. Since many women are regarded clueless on championingtheir rights, this program has enlightened them a lot. It also lowersthe chances of women to commit crimes. It isbecause women are told about theconsequences on their loved ones, themselves, and the world. Thismessage develops a sense in them,and they ultimately shy away from crime. It is holistic andtherefore, improves the general outcome of its intentions.
However, there are limitations as well. Firstly, there areshortcomings regarding the implementation of this approach. Womenmostly see officers as saviors who have come to solve all theirproblems, including financial constraints. There is alsovictimization and trauma of female offenders,and they may opt to give up in life. Again, the demands of women arevery high compared to those of men, one being child support systems.These requirements may contradict thecommunity correctional guidelines. The public has a negative attitudetowards criminal justice and facilities of correction. There is muchfocus put on the children than the mothers in case they need to beprosecuted. The requirements andchanges involved are also extensive, making it difficult to implementthe program (Haugen & Musser, 2009 p.33).
Culturally appropriate programming strengths surpass thelimitations. They include theacknowledgment of cultural diversity intothe criminal justice system. An example is the consideration ofaboriginal healing lodges in Canada. Cultural differences reflect thediversity in people’s behaviors, and perceptions about crime. Thisapproach also promotes equality in cultural representation. Trialsbased on a person’s cultural extraction enhance their satisfactionabout the verdict. Furthermore, all populations accept it becausethey agree that their cultures are different. It is also economicalon resources. Little money is needed to promote the incorporation ofdifferent cultures into the nationalcriminal systems. The limitations of this approach include thesituations where there is no analysis of power. Here, culture shallbe seen as neutral, and may lead to oppressions like sexism, racism,Islamophobia, and others. Nonetheless, the diverse values of culturemay be offensive for instance, chauvinism.Another disadvantage is the criminalization of culture. PinkaHemopo of Maori correctional department claimed that maCRN tool haddisadvantaged Maori offenders through identification of positivevalues of their culture as causing crime, or increasing its chances (Bloom, Owen, & Cavington, 2016).
The two approaches have been essential in addressing problemsof differences in criminal justice. Governments are urged to fundthese programs so that their purpose is fulfilled.
Part B. Question 1
Intersectionality involves studying the overlappingidentifications in the society and systems that arerelated, such as domination,oppression, and discrimination. Many social, cultural, and biologicalcategories such as class, gender, race, religion, ability,nationality, age, sex, and others interact with each otherdetermining the way one leads his life. This concept helps in theunderstanding of criminal justice contact of different populations.Ideally, everyone’s character should be assessed with a connectionto the mentioned elements. People live according to mixedidentifications. One may be a member of different communities atonce. He/she can also experience privileges and oppression at thesame time for instance, a woman may be an engineer,but she is experiencing domestic violence. Intersectionality exploresthe different identifications and discriminations that ensue as aresult of those identifications. For instance, a black woman may havedifferent experiences in Cape Town, South Africa,compared to a white woman at the same spot, especially if sheis a native. Also, the experiences of being gay, old, sickand physically challenged, are entirelydifferent. It means that the parameters under intersectionality givedifferences of opinion in a criminaljustice system. For example, domestic workers who are femalesexperience frequent sexual violence. This fact is because of theintersection of their identifications. She can be poor and aforeigner in that country. The employer therefore,takes advantage of her unfortunate situation for exploitation (Russel& Carlton, 2013 p. 482-487).
Criminological literature bodies support that throughintersectionality, discrepancies in structural power and personalperceptions that are peculiar to gender and race, affect perception,criminal offending, and judgment.As an example, the United States criminal justice system has a fixedperception of African Americans as being mostly associated withfelonies and drug trafficking.
The intersection of many issues such as poverty, inability toaccess human services like education, race especially colored womenin the U.S, gender and others have increased the likelihood of womento engage in crime. This concept contributes to the role ofintersectionality in understanding crime activities, and itsconnection with the criminal justice system. The inequality betweenthe culturally set goals and the legalmeans in realizing those goals has affectedthe criminal life of individuals. For example, the U.S citizens worktowards achieving “The American Dream” but they do it throughmixed and specific routes. Some decide to be fraudulentothers opt to do it through education and hard work. Thenation sets this dream, but the citizens engage in legitimateand illegitimate practices to achieve it. Meda Chesney-Lind conducteda research and established that ethnicity and race directlyinfluenced how girls and women were consideredas offenders (Scott,2012 p.10). She concluded by faulting the continuous treatmentof historically marginalized lot, despite the available evidencethrough research about a need to consider the intersectionality ofvarious issues. Victimization of Asian women in Australia wasrampant this was uniqueto the Filipino. It was based on differenttheories about their sexuality, and avaricious character. The whiteAustralians were considered superior, and in cases of dispensingcriminal justice, the Filipino women were discriminated and punishedthoroughly (Australian Human Rights Commission,2013 p.8-14). Through intersectionality, many criminologistshave shown how the propagation of crime hasbeen realized in many social conversations,institutions, and actors.
In Britain, women in prisons, based on different identifications,have been subjected to abuse. Mary Bosworth investigated the matter.It was based on varied factors such asrace, power, gender, class, and others. White offenders were accordedrespect compared to their colored counterparts. When taken to court,the likelihood of a lethal sentence for colored people was high.Another study was done at a city in NorthWestern United States. It was about the experience of femalecommercial sex workers with victimizers. The study concluded thatbecause of the association with sex work, even the government did notbother about their fundamental rights ofleading a comfortable life. Victimizers went scot-free. In Papua, NewGuinea, some cases would undoubtedlyresult in incarceration if the perpetratorlived in western countries. Rape and domestic violence werenormal, and it could just be settled athome, or not at all. It indicates that the culture in Papua waslenient to men. Women and girls were at the mercy of men. Thisperception is mainly based on theintersection of gender, role, and nature of women as being weak andinconsequential (Bosworth,2012 p.134).
In conclusion, intersectionality has an importantpart in shedding light on the issues ofdifference in the criminal justice systems of various jurisdictions.It not only moves towards changing subjects, but also to thebroadest subtopics such as research methodologies. Since thesociety defines people based on their different identities,intersectionality has utilized the same concept to popularize gaps inhuman criminal justice systems promotingeffective remedies. It wasidentified that social control was achievedthrough the constant use of identities such as race, gender,ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Despite all these facts, theutilization of intersectionality requires careful consideration ofthe means through which the transnational measurements affect areasof departure and intersection. Criminology is a sophisticated area ofstudy that requires justice to be served to both the offenders, andthe offended. Therefore, it is everybody’s task to champion goodbehavior amongst individuals to ensure the prosperityof humanity.