Campus Based Diploma Programs in Criminal Justice

Over the last few years the degree based programs in criminal justice have pulled the attention of many students of the United States. In recent times the ratio of young students opting for a degree based programs in criminal justice has doubled. In fact, today earning a degree in this field matters a lot then what it used to be few years back. These days, earning a degree in criminal justice is concentrated not just to the field of public safety, but law enforcement as well. Today while some students are earning degree as a springboard for furthering their education in the law, others are seeking to gain employment in different respective fields like detectives, paralegals or investigators. However, among different degree programs, one degree level that has witnessed the highest enrollment of students in recent years has been diploma degree programs in the criminal justice. And, adding to this, the campus based diploma programs in the criminal justice has been the format that has gained enough popularity. In case, you are looking to make a career in criminal justice then here are some of the popular campus based degree programs you can go for:

Diploma in Crime Scene Investigation: A diploma program in criminal investigation is one of the most diploma programs in criminal justice. It is one of its own kinds of program that trains students for being more competent in careers in law enforcement and other different forms of investigations. The curriculum in this discipline primarily includes studies in criminal justice, basics of ethics and psychology, defense strategies, and computer forensics. The key advantage of this program is that being a graduate in this stream, you can easily enter a different range of positions in law enforcement. The career prospects, once you complete the program are very good, due to rising demand for skilled criminal investigators.

Diploma in Court Reporting: Court reporters are professionals whose prime responsibilities revolve around recording the entire procedure that occurs in the courtroom and further provide proof for all decisions reached by the panel of judges. In fact, if you work as a court reporter then you would be responsible for all documentation handled during the trial. Now the campus based diploma program is ideally meant for individuals like you to train and upgrade your skills that are vital to work in law firms and government agencies. Generally, diploma programs in court reporting take one year to finish. However, at times this depends on the selection of school. Adding to this, having earned a diploma in court reporting you can easily earn between $30,000 and $50,000 annually. Though, this can vary depending on the nature of work, whether you are working as a freelance or salaried position.

Diploma in Legal Secretary: This diploma campus based program of legal secretary is not a pre-law course. In fact, it is a learning of law and its applications to day to day life. The key feature that makes this program unique is it helps students understand laws and policies that generally influence businesses or people. Apart from this, the coursework within this field primarily includes studies in the basics of the legal system, law, law writing, business ethics and liability, and its politics. A legal secretary diploma program can help you understand the process required to perform secretarial duties for a law firm.

Diploma in Paralegal or Legal Assistant: The primary task of a legal assistant is to investigate the facts of a given case. Working as a legal or paralegal assistant, you may be required to perform research and recognize suitable laws, legal articles, and other materials that your employing lawyer or law team might find helpful. Now in a diploma program of paralegal or legal assistant, you get the chance to learn the basic skills required in the profession. The program trains and makes you proficient in interviewing, and gain an understanding of the role of the legal assistant. Also, the program even trains you regarding the procedures that you generally require to apply to court applications, making bills, and small claims procedures.

In present scenario, around two million people are working in different fields of criminal justice after completing there diploma programs. If you are too looking forward to making a career in this industry then above mentioned programs are some of the most important diploma campus based programs that you can opt.

Seek Justice and Claim Compensation With the Help of Personal Injury Lawyer

Taking some time to get information on some things such as personal injury may be out of your priority right now. But it can help you for future reference just in case that you have been victimized and get injured through an accident or any personal injury related cases.

The knowledge that you have gain in learning things about personal injury cases can help you in times of trouble. You may not directly use it for your self, but in some cases that some of your relatives or friends are a victim and seriously injured due to negligence of an individual who is responsible to the injury that your relative have got.

Personal injury cases are usually being handled and discuss on legal courts, you need a professional to represent you and fight for your right as a victim. Miami personal injury lawyer are known to be the appropriate person who can help you with this kind of case. Of course you need someone that is reliable and trustworthy who can help you win and get some claims with the damages that your relative have gone through.

Seeking for a legal assistance can be very expensive, but you need to learn ahead of time that fees on legal assistance are not actually expensive. If your worry is about the money you need to pay for the profession fee of a Miami personal injury lawyer, then you can breathe well enough because a lot of this lawyers do not collect fees until they have represented you and until the case is close.

Fees usually depend on the policy of law firm, so before you sign any papers with them, make sure to understand their terms and condition in acquiring their services. Most of the time, there are certain percentage on the claim that you about to receive as for their service fee. And until the case is close or compensation is received you are not required to pay any fees for your lawyer.

At first your lawyer will negotiate but this is not recommended, getting full claims from the loss that your relative have been through should be your target. Hospitalization fee is not enough, you should consider loss of compensation, physical damages and other factors that you think can be considered a loss of money on your part as a victim. Miami personal injury lawyer are well experience with this kind of case and you will surely be well represented and claims will be at no time will be on your pocket as well as the justice will be served.

Locomotives and the Supreme Court

Things lose their utility with the passage of time. No matter how innovative and useful they were when first invented, most wind up in a scrap pile, or at the very best, in a museum.

Take Kitty Hawk – the first powered airplane in the history of mankind. A major breakthrough in the history of technology, it is of no use today, neither for transportation nor combat. Or how about another technological wonder – the first locomotive, built two hundred years ago that could pull a then-jaw-dropping twenty ton? There is no way for it to haul a today’s train.

Capacity matters. It is not enough to get the concept right; if a centuries-old invention is still to be of use today, its sheer brute power – the wattage that it runs on – needs to be sufficient for today’s tasks.

As far as industry is concerned, that is well understood; no one is trying to use the earliest locomotive to haul the latest train.

But look at law – and you will see a stunningly different picture.

Almost coeval with the first locomotive, the US Supreme Court started its work of giving the nation the ultimate legal guidance when that nation was comprised of five million people – roughly, 60% of today’s population of just the city of New York.

The nation has since grown sixty-fold, to three hundred million. Entire industries that were unheard-of and undreamed-of came into being; America’s lifestyle totally changed; the pace of life dramatically increased, introducing new and yet newer situations that bump against the old constraints and need resolution in the Court. And yet, the physical capacity of the Supreme Court to resolve new issues did not change one bit since the time when the very first locomotive was a grand technological wonder.

The stasis in its capacity is inherent in the very nature of the Supreme Court. Other institutions, be they governmental or private, can increase their capacity when needed by hiring help. The President, for example, deals only with the overall direction of policies but is not personally involved in the minutia of every aspect of every branch of the executive body. That would be physically impossible for him to handle, so he delegates his powers to departments where thousands work on implementing his policies. But the Supreme Court cannot delegate its tasks without defeating its very purpose of having the wisest and best legal minds (singled out as such by the President and confirmed to be such by Congress) deal with the issues brought to Court’s attention. The tasks of selecting cases, of their examination, of coming up with the decisions have to be performed by the justices themselves. Delegate any of these tasks to other, of necessity lesser, minds, and you no longer have the Supreme Court making the Supreme Court’s decisions.

The Supreme Court being of essence a single judge composed of nine individuals, it can bear only as heavy a workload as can be physically handled by any regular judge – a judge who works five days a week, eight hours a day, two thousand hours a year.

Hence, there is a definite physical limit to the number of cases the Supreme Court can possibly consider, as each case requires a lot of work. First, plaintiffs’ papers need to be read, then defendants’, than the decision needs to be made on whether to take the case; and then begins the big task of reading through the entire argument of both sides, of reaching a Court decision, of articulating it in a properly-worded opinion. The amount of time consumed by these tasks ultimately determines the limitations of the Supreme Court workload. Can it hear a million cases a year? No, because that would leave it with only 7.2 seconds per case. Ten thousand that actually get filed? No way – 12 minutes per case is hardly enough to even read a 30-page initial filing. One thousand? That’s better, at two hours per case, thought hardly sufficient to even type up the opinion, leaving alone the reading of hundreds of pages of briefs. Two hundred? At ten hours per case, that’s about adequate – and the actual figure of the cases that the Supreme Court takes annually is actually a bit lower – being less than 2% of the petitions, over 98% being denied.

One hears that the Supreme Court only takes the cases that it considers of constitutional impact, and it is fascinating that the number of “constitutional” cases matches so well the number of cases the Court can physically handle, and that a sixty-fold increase in the number of litigants over the last two centuries did not produce any increase in the number of such cases whatsoever – leaving alone a to-be-expected sixty-fold increase.

And then, there is an equally fascinating discrepancy between the function of the Supreme Court as perceived by the ordinary Americans, and the perception of this function by the justices themselves. Why would one appeal to the Supreme Court if not because he or she feels that the lower courts’ verdict was unjust, and needs to be reversed? Why go to the Supreme Court, if not in pursuit of justice? But astonishingly, the Supreme Court tells us, via its rules that it is not a place where one should come to in order to have an unjust verdict overturned: “A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or misapplication of a properly stated rule of law” – or, translating from legalese into human, “the lower court did not take facts into account, or acted in an arbitrary manner by deciding against you when the law explicitly states that the court should have decided for you? Too bad. We cannot be of help.” One wonders, what is the purpose of the Supreme Court than? Who needs it? Whom does it serve? Whose cases do get considered?

The last of these questions is not a rhetorical one, and has a precise answer. As is always the case with a scarce resource – be it meat in the former Soviet Union or services of the Supreme Court in the United States, connections is everything. When it comes to the all-important stage of selecting the cases that are to be heard, the Court operates strictly along the lines of the “old boys’ network” – precisely as one would expect given the circumstances of high demand and low supply. The inner workings of the Supreme Court are covered in strictest secrecy, lest the lesser mortals get to see legal giants’ clay feet; yet those close enough to be in a position to make highly intelligent guesses if not actually know – like law professor Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington University writing in the New York Times tell us of powerful lawyers – “powerful” because they know the justices personally, having previously served as Supreme Court clerks, whose petitions are much more likely to be taken than those of an average Tom, Dick or Harry; and current clerks are hardly passive bystanders – “the vital task of selecting those few cases [that the Court is capable of considering] is substantially delegated to young law clerks who also help write the justices’ opinions,” we are unequivocally told in a New York Times article by professor Paul Carrington of Duke University Law School. So much for the myth that cases brought before the Supreme Court are decided by the Supreme Court.

This is not to say that the justices are bad people. They operate the way they do of necessity, simply because the sheer lack of physical capacity does not allow them to operate differently. They only do what is natural to do. A Soviet meat salesman was not a bad person either; he would have been perfectly happy to sell meat to everyone – but he just did not have meat for everyone. So he prioritized. Better pieces immediately went to friends and family; the fellow-vendors of other necessities were served next, in a quid-pro-quo arrangement; local authorities took their share immediately after; and the rest of the populace had to just wait in a line for hours, and hopefully, though not necessarily, get something. Justices of the Supreme Court who are dispensing a product which is as scarce, naturally operate in the exact same way. (Though what is not natural is the fact that the Supreme Court managed recently to give one of the precious, less-than-two-hundred-a-year hearings to Guantanamo detainees – while denying over nine thousand, eight hundred fellow-Americans this privilege of being heard.)

Well, but can anything be done about it?

It can. For one, the currently employed legal procedure that is based on individual judges’ “judicial philosophy” and hence is highly arbitrary and subject to gross abuse can be vastly improved upon – as suggested in my previous piece called “Judges, Justice, and a Gulf in Between;” perhaps the key process of selecting cases for Court’s consideration should be made public and entrusted to a different body, not the justices themselves so as to ensure transparency and hence, fairness – so regular people have as good a chance to be heard by the Supreme Court as do the nabobs who can hire justices’ favorite lawyers; even the sheer number of the Supreme Courts should be increased – preferably, 60-fold, in direct proportion to the rise in population – to allow them to adequately meet the needs of the nation instead of truncating those needs, in imitation of Procrustus of Greek mythology, to the physical capacity of the Court.

“This is not the liberty which we can hope, that no grievance ever should arise in the Commonwealth – that let no man in this world expect; but when complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained that wise men look for,” John Milton wrote three and a half centuries ago in his immortal Areopagitica; and, it being that the very raison d’ĂȘtre for the courts is to provide people the ability to have their complaints “freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed,” courts should be doing just that. But how can this task be accomplished today, when its chief instrument, the Supreme Court of the United States, has neither the capacity, nor interest, to do so?

The Supreme Court of two hundred years ago that still operates today cannot be expected to provide adequate legal services to a nation that had since grown sixty-fold, any more than a two-hundred year old locomotive rolled out of a museum can be expected to pull a today’s freight train. Today’s American has a mere 1.6% of the access to the Supreme Court that his ancestor had two hundred years ago; simply put, we have only one sixtieth of the amount of justice of the first US citizens, all because the Supreme Court ran out of capacity to hear cases long, long ago. The way of fixing the Supreme Court capacity problem, thus making it provide real justice to real people rather than propound once in a while some abstruse “legal principle” as it does today, may not be immediately obvious, but for the sake of us all it needs to be actively sought out – and found.

Supreme Court Role Law Or Justice? – 1965 Editorial

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be a place of justice, or of law?

Though this question at first glance may appear to be one of those semantic traps – such as, “Have you stopped beating your wife? – its answer vitally affects your life and mine.

The traditional view of the court is that it is the final authority on the Constitution. Its only task, say political purists, is to decide whether laws passed by the legislative branch of the government are really legal.

Since the days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Supreme Court has been undergoing a gradual change. It was he who initiated the practice of appointing “liberal” politicians to the bench instead of experienced judges.

Those of us today in their late forties can remember well Roosevelt’s audacious attempt to “pack” the high tribunal. He tried to get Congress to increase the number of judges from nine to 12 so he could appoint additional “sympathetic” politicians and thwart decisions which were overturning many of his New Deal ideas.

Congress, which until then had blindly rubber-stamped Roosevelt’s wildest proposals, finally rebelled and refused to tamper with the court machinery. It was the first twinge of alarm by the party faithful who had ridden into office on the Roosevelt landslide.

With the recent nomination, and certain confirmation, of former New Dealer Abe Fortas to the court, the transition from law to justice is complete. The test of a law now will be, “Is it fair?” rather than “Is it legal?”

The philosophical approach of the Supreme Court justices had remained about evenly divided between the jurists and the reformers until the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953. Then President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed California Governor Earl Warren to the post of Chief Justice. Unknowingly, Ike tipped the balance.

Warren had been a popular and able governor. He had been careful not to align himself with the liberals or conservatives. The mood of the country was “middle of the road,” and Warren seemed to be a model of neutrality.

Once relieved of the necessity of winning votes, Warren revealed himself to be a champion of individual rights as HE, not Congress, saw them.

After only two years on the bench, he wrote the now famous decision outlawing school segregation. He led the bench in abolishing school prayer and in reapportioning state legislatures on a “one man, one vote” basis. He also joined in the decision freeing some communists convicted of sedition, for which the John Birch Society still demands his impeachment.

For the past decade, Warren has consistently voted with the “activist” group of justices who evidently hold to the theory they can, and should, correct the shortcomings of a timid Congress.

Arthur Goldberg, during his short term on the Supreme Court, identified himself with the Warren outlook.

Now U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Goldberg was a liberal, labor-supported Jew. In these days of minority deference, our presidents have felt it necessary to keep one justice of these exact political qualifications on the bench. Consequently, President Lyndon B. Johnson has tapped his long time friend, Fortas, to replace Goldberg. The balance for “fair” decisions remains unchanged.

There is no objection at all, on my part, to Fortas’ neat appeal to an important block of minorities. He is just the counterpart of the conservative southern Protestant and the moderate midwestern Catholic also carefully represented on the court. It’s likely a Negro will be the next justice.

I do find disappointing, however, the present state of political affairs which make such opportunistic appointments necessary.

Fortas is one more of a long line of non-judicial Supreme Court Justices to troop to the bench. He was general counsel of Roosevelt’s Public Works Administration at 29 and undersecretary of the Interior at 32. Now 55, he is described by President Johnson as “a man of humane and deeply compassionate feelings toward his fellow man – a champion of our liberties.”

Inevitably, the rhetorical question suggests itself, “Is it the duty of a Supreme Court justice to champion causes with enthusiasm, or arbitrate disputes impartially?

As a senior partner of a prominent Washington D.C. law firm, Fortas has defended such clients as Owen Lattimore, the U.S. State Department specialist accused of lying about Communist associations; and Bobby Baker, former Democratic Senate aide whose lucrative business dealings came under Congressional investigation last year.

More recently, Fortas attracted public notice when he attempted to get Washington D.C. newspapers to suppress the story last fall about the arrest of President Johnson’s aide, Walter Jenkins, on morals charges.

Congressman Durward G. Hall summed up my misgivings when he said recently before the House of Representatives, “There is a serious question whether Fortas will be able to exercise independence of his ties with the President – he has been a quiet participant in some of the more dubious transactions of the Johnson Administration.”

Many Americans, including myself, have two minds concerning the conflict between justice and law. Unfortunately, the two are not synonymous.

In the hand of shysters, bureaucrats, and grafters our laws are dangerous weapons. Somewhere the spirit of the law must prevail over arbitrary letters.

Yet, the personal convictions of men beyond reach of the electorate can not be allowed to transcend the will of the people as expressed by duly elected representatives.

Until there is less politics and more statesmanship on the Supreme Court bench, we will be better served by a court of law than one of men.

August 20, 1965

Click here to see this article on Lindsey Williams’s website

Criminal Justice and Its Subfields

Criminal justice is the means through which justice can be dispensed by the government and social institutions in order to keep crime and criminal minds under control. Criminal justice as a profession is highly essential in order to keep justice intact in the homeland and ensure peace and harmony. There are various challenges which are faced by the government and various welfare agencies to ensure peace.

The various other subjects which are linked to criminal justice are sociology, psychology, science and communication.

Sociology is a subject which deals with studying people and their behavior.
Psychology is about the way a person thinks, which keeps changing according to his family, society, workplace and community.
Science is the practical and reasoning field which looks at things people and situations critically.
Communication is the means through which a person expresses his feelings, emotions, needs and desires. The importance of communication is increasing with the highly changing nature of the society with the advent of technology.

Fields

3 fields in which a person can continue a future career in criminal justice are:

Law enforcement

Forensic science

Homeland security

Future Job prospects

The various job prospects in criminal justice are:

Correctional officer

A correctional officer is the one who looks after the inmates in prison who are awaiting trial or are serving a term. It is a dangerous profession as the correctional officer could face injuries from inmates and the growth rate in this profession is seen at being 5% from 2010.

Courtroom reporter

A reporter who reports on court room proceedings has a lot of say in influencing the media and it is highly essential that he takes vital information along with him to be reported.

Crime scene examiner

The person who investigates, collects evidences, from the scene of crime is the crime scene investigator and he plays a major role in solving a case. A criminal mind and his next move is well understood by a crime scene examiner. His observations help in solving a case.

Detective

A detective is a private investigator or a member of the police service who investigates on matters of national importance, historical crimes and those crimes which are not solved easily. A detective helps in law enforcement in a country.

Lawyer

A lawyer is the person who practices law as a solicitor, advocate, counselor, attorney, barrister and helps in dispensing justice. He is the person who solicits for his clients. They are there to ensure that no person is indulging in immoral or unethical activities. A person who is afflicted regarding something unjust done to him approach lawyers to seek for legal help.

Paralegal

A paralegal assistant is the one which assists lawyers in their profession. Paralegal and legal assistants help lawyers in maintaining files, conducting research, organizing documents and so on.

Other careers related to criminal justice are working as a police officer, private investigator, probation officer to name a few.

Criminal justice is becoming highly essential in this fast paced life modern life where the number of crime rates is increasing and the need to dispense justice is increasing. The various careers which are related to criminal justice give an understanding of how these systems ensure peace, solitude and harmony to people.