Administrative Change in Criminal Justice Agencies

Terrorism acts continue to be carried out, day in day out, across the globe. This is done either by citizens or foreigners. The United States of America falls in the pool of the countries targeted most by terrorists in spite of having some of the best Criminal Justice Agencies in the world, for example the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  This underscores the need of Criminal Justice Agencies to be ever alert. Some of the major terrorism attacks in the United States include the 1st October 1910 Los Angeles Times Bombing and more recently September 11th 2001 bomb attack on the World Trade Towers.( Khan,2008)

In a nut shell the criminal justice system consists of the correction, adjudication and law enforcement systems. All these are equally important in countering terrorism yet most agencies ignore the correction bit. Most suspects are usually held for long periods without trial. This not only violates human rights but also beats the logic of apprehending them. When apprehended, these suspects should be tried fairly after which they should undergo correction if found guilty. Those who undergo correction can be more resourceful in advising on better ways of combating terror than those who are tortured to give information. On top of this, they can also be very effective anti-terror ambassadors after reforming. This could partly explain the proposed closure of Guantanamo bay detention camp in Cuba. (Lustick, 2008)

In response to attacks, real or otherwise, these agencies have put in place various counter terrorism and anti terrorism practices as they try to outsmart terrorists. However, it is at counter terrorism where these agencies fail. Counter terrorism is usually offensive and only goes a step further to increase the threats of terrorism

These agencies should therefore avoid at all costs any use of counter terrorism. They should walk away from counter terrorism which they more often than not use and instead employ more anti terrorism tactics. It is counter terrorism which has led to some instances of human rights violation and abuse of power the results of which are always negative. Worst of all of these results have been the loss of innocent lives. (Khan, 2008)

Investment in anti terrorism is one of the surest ways of combating terror. Being defensive in nature, it calls for less battle field and more intelligence and technology. This is in line with the ever improving terror techniques employed by wealthy terrorists. It would be worth noting that initially, terror threats were to a large extent inspired by social and religious reasons but has now expanded to economical motives. (Sommer, 2006)

Anti terrorism will not only encourage cooperation among nations but will also reduce future possible cases of revenge. Anti terrorism may be expensive as it includes among other things achieving sustainability and eliminating inequalities in resource distribution but in the long run works for the good of the majority. (Lustick, 2008)

Anti terrorism unlike counter terrorism rarely elicits protests from human rights activists since it observes standards of accountability acceptable globally. This in turn encourages and strengthens concerted international fight against terrorism. This requires those weak states be empowered with resources human, financial or otherwise since they are usually hideouts of terrorists. This in itself requires enormous financial commitment.

Terror should be defeated at all costs and thus counter terrorism should be ruled out. However, it should only be employed as a matter of last option. Leonard Peikoff once said, There are only two fundamental methods by which men can deal with one another by reason or by force, by intellectual persuasion or by physical coercion, by directing to an opponents brain an argumentor a bullet. Which one is better.


Post a Comment