Crime Controlled Centred Criminal Justice System

There has been an increase in crime due to the advancement in technology. This allows the criminals to become sophisticated with time. It has allowed an easy escape of the criminals who should be arraigned in courts and brought to justice. There has been an increase in the use of drugs, kidnappings, illegal firearms and terrorism. New forms of crime have developed with time and these are great worries for citizens. The level of crime, however, varies from region to region. There are different models to control crime and maintain order. It is the duty of the government to ensure that crime within the country is reduced to a lower level. The government has put machinery to ensure that this is achieved and maintained.

Criminal Justice System refers to a system which ensures the reduction of crime through measures geared towards punishing the offenders. It ensures control and bringing to justice the culprits who violate the set laws. Efforts which are used are either to rehabilitate the offenders or the use of penalties. However, there are limits to the application of these efforts with the rights of the accused protected by the legislation. Criminal justice systems vary and have different goals and principles. Most systems, however, are governed by the need to reduce crime in the society to protect its citizens.  There is need for proper coordination to be established in all the organs and departments involved. The achievement of reduction of crime is to ensure that all offences are brought to justice. This ensures that the trust is maintained by the public on the judicial system. It ensures fairness in the criminal justice system. Three organs make up the criminal justice system. These are Police, Courts and correctional units. The police ensure the enforcement of laws. The courts are charged with the duty of adjudication whereas correctional units (prisons and jails) hold the culprits1.

For the criminal justice to work effectively, laws have to be set. These are rules which are enforced through a channel of institutions. They function to have an objective of rules that are used to maintain order.1 Criminal law deals with dangerous action which should be punished in the society. Civil laws govern the problems or an issue between individuals.1 Criminal laws defines the aspects of crime and gives the verdict of punishments for the crimes. Criminal justice basically deals with criminal law.1

Control of Crime and Rights of accused
Criminal justice systems ensure the reduction in crime rate within the society. The system does this by successfully detecting crime through investigations, prosecution and detention of the offenders.1 While carrying out its functions, there is need to protect the rights of the accused. The criminal justice system does not, however, ensure this. Most  offenders are not protected in police custody. Criminal justice has a social responsibility of protecting the suspects apart from its fight against crime. The reason behind the decline in the operations of the justice is the disparity in wealth.1

As Sanders and Young (2007) write, In a society in which power, status and wealth are unequally distribute along lines such as age, gender, race, and class, much criminal justice activity will compound wider social divisions.

The police, for example, may detain someone without giving them a reason for their arrest. It is upon the police to justify why an individual is arrested. The person needs to be informed of the reasons why he or she is being detained.2 It is therefore wrong for a person to be detained for more than a certain period before being charged in a court for crime he or she has been made aware of. This directive is from a court of law and it is known as A Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is a requirement to the government to give reasons as to why a person has been imprisoned.2

Secondly, law enforcers and judges may charge someone without involving a jury. Every person who commits a serious offence should undergo a trial in front of a jury. The jury (fellow citizens) determines the persons innocence or guilt.2 The involvement of a jury offers an effective way to check whether the law enforcement is effective or not. The jury should not be biased in their decisions.2 In some instances, however, there might not be a jury trial at the request of the accused. The right to a jury may be waived by a person who feels that the judge would understand the circumstances more.2The proceedings of the grand jury are usually secret and the public is not part of it. It decides on whether the evidence is sufficient for a trial to be made on the accused. This is mainly for felony cases.1

Thirdly, the system may put a person two times in jeopardy. This violates the persons right to be protected from double jeopardy. A person cannot be charged twice for the same offence after passing a jury trial.2 Once a person has been acquitted (found not guilty), no legal action can be taken afterwards against the person for that particular crime.

The police may also resolve to excess and cruel punishment on the accused. Torture by the police has been a common scenario in many systems. This violates the rights of the accused. Painful techniques such as whippings have been used by most law enforcers. The accused should also be provided with a good environment and humane conditions.2 Most prisons are in a pathetic unsanitary condition which violates the right of the accused to be protected from such conditions

Police officers have for along time searched peoples property without warrant. This is a forbidden practise and the law officer needs to gather substantial evidence to allow him to have a warrant from the judge.2The need for a warrant has been a big issue which has created controversies. Evidence got through a forceful search of a persons property may be suppressed by the court on request by the lawyer.2

In summary, criminal justice system may end up violating the rights of the accused who should be offered protection by the state.2 In most current justice systems,  the rights of accused include the following right to a jury trial, counsel representation, innocent till proven guilty, the right to prove his or her innocence by providing evidence and or witnesses. Cross-examination of the accusers is also a right of the accused.2 He or she should be given time to ask relevant questions that might help himher in the case. These rights can be violated if the criminal justice system is flawed or not efficient despite the fact that crime levels might be reduced.

The case of Ernesto Miranda (1963), for example, had to be struck down by the court since the police did not inform him of the right to remain silent and the right to consult a lawyer.3 He had been convicted of attacking a woman. The woman identified him and he was interrogated by the police.3 However, he was not informed of these rights although he confessed.3 Mirandas lawyer claimed that the police had violated the 5th amendment which states that a person should not be compelled to be a witness against himself.3 This ruling of the court was met with a lot of complains by the enforcement officials.3 This led to the police resolving to read the rights to the suspects. These are right to remain silent, right to a lawyer, reminder that a lawyer will be provided if the suspect cannot afford and the reminder that anything that he or she says may be used against him. These are the Miranda rights of suspects.3

It is the duty of the government to ensure that order is maintained and the citizens are protected.2There has been a rise in the crime levels and this makes the law enforcers to be tough. It sometimes leads to excessive force being used on the criminals to ensure that crime levels are reduced. This, however, should not warrant the violation of the rights of the accused who should be protected. There are limits to the power of the police and this is included in the constitution.2The prosecutors have the duty of proving a persons innocence or guilt. There is need to have a balance between the powers of the officials and their limits to avoid oppression.2

Crime Analysis and Investigation

A hypothesis is a tentative statement regarding an issue. Assuming that a personal hypothesis is the only possible way to solving an issue is wrong because knowledge is diverse and human nature is limited.

Diagnostic evidence is based on the likelihood of a hypothesis giving a more convincing stand on an issue. To cite an example, when two hypotheses are tabled, a comparison is made to determine which offers the best alternative to the problem.

Evaluating hypotheses to determine diagnostic value implies that hypotheses have been weighed against others and the best has been chosen. Un-diagnostic value hypothesis is that which has not been compared with competing hypotheses. Numeracy is of great value in determination of hypothetical issues. Using a diagnostic matrix approach is valuable as it helps anchor findings by giving them numerical support.

Picking the minuses in hypotheses is important as it helps come up with valid and reliable results. The removal of inconsistencies from hypothesis is what makes them valuable. The best way to evaluate evidence and hypotheses is through testing them by carrying out a study.

A shorthand thinking record helps save time when looking at research questions. A criminologist is faced with a host of questions like dealing with societal problems. This approach will help in these circumstances.

The ACH procedure is useful in helping make a choice regarding the best hypothesis. The process thus leads to adoption of reliable hypotheses. However, the process is time consuming and may require more resources to carry out.

Privatization of US Prison System

The essay is mainly focused on the merits and demerits of privatizing the prison system of the United States. The demerits of privatizing the correctional facilities have first been discussed clearly indicating that the management of prisons should remain in the hands of the public sector. The merits of privatization have also been discussed and they indicate reasons why prison management should be privatized. The essay also briefly discusses the challenges that are likely to be faced as a result of privatizing the American prisons.

The management of prison facilities in the United States has for several years remained in the hands of the public sector. However, in the recent past, there has been a heated debate throughout the country calling for the privatization of the prison system in the country. Just like any other major issue in the country, prison privatization has witnessed both supporters as well as opponents. There are certain evident benefits that the US as a nation is likely to experience as a result of privatizing the prisons system of the country. However, there are also eminent demerits that will arise from the privatization of the American prison system. The policy makers of the US are therefore faced with a major task of making an informed decision of whether to privatize the prison system or not. In doing so, they will have to weigh the merits and demerits of both options before making their recommendations (Bender, 1991).

Arguments against privatization of prisons
The correctional facilities of the United States play a major role in the countrys criminal justice system. They deter criminals from violating the laws of the land, the inmates are rehabilitated so that they can become better American citizens once they are out of the prisons and they also help in keeping neighborhoods much safer. Clearly, these are roles whose importance in the American society is so great that they cannot be left in the hands of the private sector. The American citizens pay taxes to their government so that they can be protected from criminals who are likely to injure them as they break the law. It is not in order for the American government to in turn delegate these crucial roles to the private sector. If serious errors are to occur in the privatized prisons, the citizens are supposed to make their government accountable, but if the government has delegated such a sensitive role, accountability would be quite hard to determine (James, 1997).

The private sector while conducting its affairs is largely guided by the objectives of maximizing profits and wealth. These objectives differ significantly with the ones that are required in the management of sensitive areas such as the prisons. It is only the American government through its security agencies and departments that has the capacity of implementing and pursuing the objectives that are desired in the prison system of the country. Leaving the correctional facilities under the management of the private sector may prove fatal especially if such management opts to pursue the objectives of wealth and private maximization as opposed to deterrence and rehabilitation of inmates who have put behind bars for various offences (Yarrow  Jasinski, 1996).

Just like other American citizens, the prisoners too have human rights which should be protected by the American government at all times. The current state of the management of the prison system in the country offers the American government a great opportunity of ensuring that all the prisoners enjoy all their human rights and instances of human rights violations are avoided as much as possible. If the prison system of the country is privatized, there are high chances of the American government failing to aggressively ensure that all the human rights of the prisoners are well safeguarded. America as a nation was founded on the principles of human rights and freedom for each and  every American citizen, irrespective of whether they are inmates or not. Therefore, if the American government takes measures that are likely to put in jeopardy the rights of one or more segments of its population, it will have gone against the principles against which it was founded. The privatization of prisons should therefore not take place since it is very important for the American inmates to continue enjoying their human rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution of the country (Logan, 1990).

Currently, the American prison system is managed by the public sector. It is therefore possible for the public through the civil society and non governmental organizations to closely scrutinize these facilities. By constantly monitoring the activities taking place in the countrys correctional facilities, the American government as well as the prison management is constantly under pressure to ensure that they do not go against the roles they are supposed to play while managing these facilities. This increases accountability, transparency and integrity on the part of both the government and the prison management. However, such monitoring is possible because the prison system of the country is under public management and thus the Americans have a say in whatever goes on in these facilities. Such would not be possible if the prison system is privatized. Privatized prisons are not open to public scrutiny thus leaving major loopholes which can be used negatively not only to the American inmates serving sentences in the correctional facilities, but indeed to the entire criminal justice system of the country. Significant violations are likely to take place and go unnoticed for extended periods of time if there is no public scrutiny. The American prison system should thus not be privatized so as to keep the public scrutiny doors wide open and thus discourage any malpractices that are likely to take place in the absence of such scrutiny (Bender, 1991).

Arguments for privatization of prisons
Privatization of prison systems in the US is a highly welcomed move which is expected to change the manner in which the correctional facilities of the nation are managed. Management of these facilities by the public sector for several years has brought about increased instances of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. As a result, the main objectives of these facilities have not been achieved. The private sector is known to manage organizations better than the government. If the correctional facilities in America are privatized, the private sector are likely to add much value in these facilities by reducing inefficiencies and ineffectiveness that have been witnessed by managing these facilities through the public sector. If the American government is serious in reforming the correctional facilities in the country, it should seriously consider privatizing them (James, 1997).

The correctional facilities spends significant amounts of money every year, however the public sector does not have the capacity of managing these financial resources in an efficient manner. Through privatization of these facilities, the costs that are involved in running prisons is likely to reduce dramatically and thus save the taxes spent in running these facilities and use them in other sectors. The current prison system under public sector management is associated with high levels of bureaucracy which negatively impact the services offered by correctional facilities. The high quality management skills possessed by the private sector have the capacity of streamlining management processes and make them much better. Privatizing the prison system of the country is thus a major way through which the management of the countrys correctional facilities can be achieved (Logan, 1990).

The US as a good example of a nation that applies modern economies should not monopolize each and every other service to the American people. The private sector has in the past proved highly capable means in managing several public sectors such as education, sanitation, health and water utilities. Therefore, the question that the private sector is likely to mismanage the correctional facilities should not arise since they will manage them in the same manner they have managed other public sectors and achieved great success. The American prison system should thus be privatized in order to decrease government domination in various sectors of the economy (Bender, 1991).

Both the private the public sectors are likely to face some challenges in the privatization of American prison system. There needs to be a very clear framework through which the privatization process should take place. If privatization is to take place, the public management of the correctional has to hand over the powers it has to the private sector mandated to manage the facilities. At the same time, the public sector has to ensure that it grants the right powers to the private sector and creates a system of checks and balances in order to minimize instances of abuse of such powers. On its part, the private sector does not only have the duty of proving that it is equal to the task, but also have to ensure that it operates within the law and any necessary amendments to be proposed to the policymakers for consideration (James, 1997).

Privatization of American prison system is a highly delicate and sensitive issue that should be well considered. The American policymakers should first look at the merits and demerits discussed above before concluding whether the correctional facilities should be privatized or not. If privatization is to take place, all the demerits associated with privatization should thoroughly be looked into in order to address them as much as possible. On the other hand, if the management of the correctional facilities is to remain in the hands of the public sector, all the factors that have led to the calling of privatization should be addressed.

All about FEMA

The United States Federal government established the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with the main aim of serving to coordinate the response to emergency situations that may occur within the United States. FEMA therefore offered the centralized pattern of control to all the emergency activities as it is involved in the coordination of the emergency programs that are beyond the state and local government control. FEMA also offers assistance to both the local and state emergency management teams in terms of coordination and support programs related to disaster preparedness.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an agency that falls under the US Department of Homeland Security. FEMA was formed in 1979 by the Jimmy Carter administration with the main purpose of coordinating how to respond to major disasters within the US which could overwhelm the available resources found locally and at state level. This paper seeks to analyze the FEMA program from its time of inception to present.

Historical Background
The official creation of FEMA took place in 1979 through an executive order to provide leadership to federal emergency operations. Before that, federal emergency procedures were chaotic as they lacked a centralized direction and control. FEMA therefore emerged as a means to correct the messes experienced due to lack of proper organization in disaster management. Earlier on in the 1950s, the Congress had established a federal government role in management of emergencies to redefine and reorganize emergency management. The emergence of FEMA can therefore be seen as a major experimentation which involved the recasting of the federal role in emergency management and a new approach to fulfilling that role (May, 1985, p 40). Though FEMA was not created on experimental grounds, the historical trial and error models that have been used in regards to the management of emergencies at the federal level in deed makes the undertaking a true experiment (May, 1985).

Mission and organization
The creation of FEMA was meant to reinforce the federal leadership in managing emergencies with the primary goal of averting losses. Thus the organization of the agency is in such a way that it underscores the principle of shared responsibility in relation to emergency management amongst the federal, state and local governments. FEMA employs the shared governance approach in managing the emergencies. FEMA is usually involved in mitigating, preparedness, responding, and recovery aspects of disaster management. The states benefit from FEMA in various counts including training programs and investigative information on alleviation actions reviewing and coordinating the emergency plans of the states financial assistance and the provision of subsidies to states and local government emergency management offices in maintaining their programs. FEMA is also engaged in several coordination programs that are associated with emergency management programs at the local, state and federal level.

The Four phases of emergency management
There are four essential phases of emergency management which includes mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. These forms the pillars of disaster management program as administered by FEMA. In mitigation, activities that relate to prevention of the occurrence of an emergency andor reduction of the adversary impacts of a disaster are emphasized. Particular hazard mitigation plans are formed in case of the federal declaration of a disaster. The mitigation plans have to reflect the risk analysis and priorities of a particular disaster. Preparedness is to be found in the types of plans or procedural designs aimed at saving lives and minimizing damages during an emergency.

Preparedness incorporates forecasting, training and calamity drills. Such activities guarantee that whenever there is an emergency, those managing the emergency are in a position to respond appropriately. Calamities may strike due to man-made and natural hazards but the best protection lies in the knowledge on how to handle such disasters (Fisher, 2008).

Response involves the actions that are initiated in the course or after a disaster. Response is meant to prevent additional harm during a disaster or any emergency circumstances. Response can be described as putting the preparedness into action and includes fire-fighting, providing shelter to victims of a disaster, searching and rescuing mission among many other operations during a disaster. Last but not least is the recovery which is described as those activities that are meant to normalize the situation in the wake of a disaster. Recovery may include actions such as rebuilding, repairing and replacing what was lost during a disaster so as victims can continue with their lives in the normal way (Fisher, 2008).

Recent emergency actions by FEMA
From the time of inception, FEMA has continuously been expanded with more responsibilities being assigned to the agency. FEMA has therefore continued to be involved in various emergency management incidences due to the ever-expanding nature of its responsibilities. Following the Homeland Security Act of 2002, FEMA was incorporated in the Department of Homeland Security where it was thought to comfortably administer its procedures in disaster management. Following the Hurricane Katrina and Rita, FEMA got involved in the emergency management in the affected states. FEMA helped in the rebuilding of public infrastructural facilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama which had been destroyed following the disasters. FEMA engaged in the funding of various projects to reconstruct the health facilities, schools, roads  bridges among other public facilities to aid in the recovery of the region. These efforts were also meant to make sure that the region emerged much stronger in the face of any other adversary in future (U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityFederal Emergency Management Agency, 2010).

FEMA has been conferred with the noble objective of ensuring the safety of citizens particularly in times of disasters. Its main focus has been to deal with the challenges that are brought about by disasters and how to avoid these challenges. It therefore involves preparations for the emergencies prior to their occurrence responding to these disasters when they occur offering support and rebuilding the society in the aftermath of a disaster. FEMAs main objective is therefore to minimize the adversaries of disasters that may strike when least expected.

Advantages of DNA Blood Evidence

The use of DNA blood evidence has several advantages in solving a number of criminal cases. It gives more information in cases where the suspect was in close contact with the victim. In some cases, there is a high probability of blood exchange between the two parties. For instance, when the victim was stabbed or beaten. This is different from a case in which the victim was shot from a distance. It is a fact that blood sample collected from around the victim was as a result of bleeding from the gun shot wound. An analysis of blood stains on the suspects body or clothes and that of the victim will help in solving cases where there was close contact (Schiro, 2010).

Secondly, most serious crimes usually involve individuals who commit several other crimes. It would be easier to identify and apprehend these suspects by using DNA blood evidence. This is done by putting the evidence in a data base when a person is arrested the first time. This is the same principle used in fingerprint databases. Banking of DNA provides an easy way of identifying suspects (Human Genome Project Information, 2009).

This is supported by Stewart (2010) who agrees that many criminal cases which lack enough evidence are usually closed many years later. This would deny the victims and their families the justice they deserve. This can be solved by having a data base with DNA blood samples of offenders. Materials will then be collected from the scene and matched with preserved samples of past offenders. Thirdly, it helps in solving cases whereby an individual is convicted wrongfully due to false confessions or misidentifications (Stewart, 2010).

DNA evidence also helps in solving cases involving paternity conflicts. For example, there can be an exchange of an infant during conception either intentionally or unintentionally. The use of blood samples helps in determining the true relationship (Stewart, 2010). It has also been applied in identification of victims, such as fatalities of the September terrorist attacks on World Trade Center (Stewart, 2010).

Responsible Administration

Public administration is a serous task that needs full corporation and participation of leaders. The most important thing in public leadership is the build up of trust and a coherent relationship among all leadership departments and official to avoid unnecessary failures. Transparency and accountability are key factors to leadership of both small and big groups. Good leaders need to be in a position to meet deadlines and fulfill the demands of the led. In bureaucratic associations like State leadership, administration is not an easy task (Zacharias Fred, 2007). Leaders are expected to follow protocol in all their under takings to ensure that work ethics are adhered to otherwise they will face a lot of criticism from all over the society.

It is important to learn that internal controls as well as external controls are worth upon holding for any functional government. Conflicting interests, political influence and financial problems are the most common problems among many democracies. These problems have resulted in corruption and interruption of the normal working protocol of governments in both developed and developing nations (Calo Thomas, 2008). The failure to regulate political interest is such a great danger that majority of the leaders are unable to produce effectively yet their responsibility in the congress or parliament is to represent the interest of citizens.

Internal control refers to practice of taking charge and full responsibility by leaders to ensure that accountability and trust on public property and fund is enforced. If for example political parties and individual politicians are not checked from internal control checks they may end up exploiting the public in different ways through corruption, fraud, and untimely feedback. It is expected that government representatives are expected to own up to respective work ethics. Internal controls include formalized and organized procedural structures that assure integrity, professional competence and ethical conduct by leaders all with the aim of good performance of national or organizational goals. In addition, internal security checks are very vital in national progress and appropriate administration (Kamensky John, 1996).

On the other hand, eternal controls involve that selection of an appropriate watch dog to govern or supervise some State functions that need close mentoring by a non partisan group. For example an electoral commission that controls elections in a State need not be an affiliate to any of the national political parties so as to generate good results of any election (Bozoki Andras, 2002).  Anti-corruption commissions are another good example of external controls that can help in the correction of a national leadership if it is not in order. External audit systems should also be applied to different departments of a national leadership so as to ensure accountability on public funds.

However despite the common knowledge of the role of internal and external checks, most governments have problem with corruption due to political affiliations of leaders within the different control bodies of the governments.

Leadership should not be taken for granted if national progress is to be achieved. Taking for example the Bush administration in America which is rated the lowest in State financial administration, has left the government crippling in a very large economic deficit due to lack of proper financial policies. Lots of finances were used in support of war and corruption while little attention was laid in the development of economy. Bush administration left a national debt of about 62 trillion in Medicare and social security. Apart from this there was other debt that needed to be recovered by the next governments administration in the U.S. This is a pity. Respect for leadership positions should be created among governments to avoid unnecessary debts for the society.

In connection to good governance in the United States, government reforms of the government Act of 1989 serves to correct corruption and unfair treatment within the government.  The government Act of 1989 as signed by President Bush had policies that guarded the security of different organs of the government.  Government leaders were barred from receiving honoraria (Bouza Tony, 1996).  All federal employees were no longer supposed to receive gifts of different kinds, there were also some limitations that were imposed on different officials and unemployed categories of people so as to bar corruption from government official.  This Act of 1989 was meant to streamline government spending and reduce chances of fraud and theft on public funds.  Unfair treatment of workers poor services resulting from incapability of jobseekers to pay for bribes became punishable offence after the signing of the Act of government.

The reforms were a great advantage to the citizens. With the reforms, able citizen were now more accessible to government services and would not be locked out of the civil service through corruption or bribery.  The main objective of the government Act of 1989 was to initiate equitable government systems that offer fair treatment to all.  The Act on 1989 states that federal leaders should not receive gifts from employees be it a contribution, a solicited contributions, donations form any employees or federal official. The ethics as described by the government Act of 1989 bars any kind of gift within the work sector that may influence performance of employees and employers so as to act as a bribe or corruption.

The government during this reform has defined clear salary expectations for different officers so as to avoid unnecessary government spending on tokens and gifts that promote theft and fraud.  The salaries for judges are stipulated in the Government Act.

More over, government spending on education and seminar attendance for official has been assigned a board to administrators thus avoiding poor spending of public funds in the sector. The congress then serves to correct the boards decision if need be.  The congress also approves for the functions of the different organs of the government to ensure accountability.

However, the clause does not preclude officials from receiving gifts on behalf of U.S government.  Government policies do not allow government spending on additional compensation to judges fro the reasons of their good performance (Allen Francis, 1996).  It is their duty to perform effectively and productively according to the professional ethics of their job.  It is said to extravagant if they just receive token for the duty that they have been assigned to do.  Government funding should be protected and used in the correct possible ways as stipulated by the government of U.S.

In conclusion, if government and other administrative forces are not checked they end up being corrupt and waste state funds in undertakings that are of self interest.  This is the worst kind of government a society may have.  More so according to the government Act of 1989, if state leaders never receive gifts and bribes of any kind then national funds may never be wasted.  Integrity in federal offices is a very important virtue towards development of government policies and use of public funds.  This is the overall theme for having good leadership and appropriate governance.  In addition, there is need for accountability and responsibility in federal offices for responsible leadership.

International Terrorism

Terrorism is among the great socials threat in the modern world today. There are efforts globally in addressing this omen. Governments have strengthened their security measures to ensure that they do not succumb to acts of terror. This study seeks to analyze the different definitions advanced in a bid to understand terrorism. There will be illustrations of how terrorism has been justified across the board. The structure and organization of terrorism networks will be elucidated and lastly the view of Huntington and Barnett will also be considered particularly the theme of clash of civilization and its contribution to terrorism.

Definition of Terrorism
It is a premeditated use of aggression and hostility against the public with a view to achieve objectives and ends that are political or religious based or ideological as such. The actors inflict fear and coercion and unnecessary anxiety (Wordnet Search c. 2010).In the etymological sense, it is the methodical utilization of terror as a policy or strategy (Online Etymology Dictionary, n.d.)It is the illegal use of force or violent intimidation by a person or a group of people against the civilians or material things with an objective to inflict fear or compulsion to the society, governments largely because of ideological and political purposes (American Heritage, n.d.)It comprises violent acts enacted by groups of people that feel marginalized or discriminated against in their history (American Heritage, n.d.).

It is a pre-reflected utilization of illegitimate violence and threat to stir fear and coarse the civilians and governments as well as instilling fear on them with malicious political, religious or ideological-based factors (Military Department, n.d.). In the Law Code of United States terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents (US Code, n.d.).

As can be noted from the definitions above there is circularity in the meaning of terrorism. This implies that there are certain aspects of terrorism that are universally agreed upon. Generally, there is a perceived of terrorism as an activity geared towards certain political, ideological and religions intentions and objectives. In deed, use of the notion of coercion and intimidation features throughout the many definitions advanced. It is rather difficult to rule out any of the definitions first because they settle for a common understanding. The one that a person would be quick to discount is the cultural aspect of it in that it is a reaction of a marginalized group to oppressive authorities. Well, it has some truth but looking at it from the activities of terrorism today, there is a sharp dissimilarity. Other definitions fit since they concur with the general traits and motives that terrorism exhibit in the contemporary world.

Justification of Terrorism
It is widely believed that terrorists base their terrorism acts on religious grounds. As expressed from the definitions above, religion is one of the fundamental motives in terrorism. In deed, terrorism has been greatly adjoined to the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. However there is a big antagonism to this view. According to Prophet Muhammad, there are six things that one should take caution. That when one speaks,  should do so in truth promises made should be fulfilled share and emancipation of  ones trust only chaste thoughts are to be entertained guard your hand from striking, taking illegal and malicious objects (Baldev, R. 2007).

In the modern opinions advanced, the quest to justify terrorism on moral basis succumbs to skeptism and incredulity, in the scholarly point of view as well as the popularly held views. Robespierre dictum that virtue devoid of terror is powerless has lost credibility I the modern context as compared in the past it has no appropriate moral grounding (Kapitan, T. 2007).

As noted in the cultural connotation of terrorism above terrorism is justified as an affirmative action by an oppressed group. Its claims and dynamics are justified on the fact that it is a war against oppression. It is believed that morally conservative Muslims regard United States as the principal actors in the global decadence and corruption and as such see Muslims as the greatest evil. United States is has an economic interest in the oil and this is regarded as the reason why tyrant authorities are still in power in the Middle East. This promotes the notion that terrorism is morally justified and the only appropriate way to wage jihad against what is perceived as the rivals of God.

Guerilla forces are very swift in taking wars against civilized nations through acts of terrorism. They act under evil religious ideas which give them enthusiasm to die and more so to take the lives of others especially innocent people in their bid to carry out jihad activities. They believe that this will lead them to a paradise with beautiful houris.Civilizations founded on peace do not resort to terrorism however, terrorism is regarded as the best means that an oppressed civilization resorts to in hitting back to power and tyrannical military force. Terrorism is believed to be a tactical move in provoking the superior forces son that they can engage in war with the inferior forces. Terrorist pursue a certain cause through acts of terrorism. Juergensmeyer states that violence is a vocation to cleanse the world from the nonbeliever and inaccurate interpretations in a holy way. The holy terrorist is triumphant either by killing or by dying in the process of struggle.

A terrorist has been sharply distinguished from a criminal as follows as follows Terrorists find motivation and power from the cause and ideology behind the cause whereas for a criminal it is usually a vision in a vacuum with an aim to obtain a material good. A terrorist is focused unlike the criminal who is an opportunist. As stated above a terrorist is dedicated to a particular cause while on the contrary a criminal is without an obvious cause. Terrorists are disciplines, trained and altruistic contrary to the criminals in that they are undisciplined, untrained and egocentric. Above all, the targets for the terrorists have a symbolic value.

Terrorism reinforcement is a generational one. Individual members are made to feel that their rewards are within the terrorist groups. They reinforce the notion of isolation in the generations for instance, US-against-them belief. It is believed that this spirit of antisocial behavior within terrorist groups develops the conforming attitude and inclination inside the organization.

Structure and Organization common to Terror Groups
A terrorists organizations structure, association and membership, resources, and security influence their potentialities and achievements. The understanding of the present and developed models of terrorist organization enhances the comprehension and situational consciousness of terrorism in a contemporary dynamic environment (Philpott, D. 2007).

In the traditional appreciation of terrorism widely held images of a terrorist group working in tandem with a particular political agenda and catalyzed by ideology and struggle for national liberation dominated. Terrorism intimidations range al-Qaida and its affiliated units with regional, global and transnational and extend to domestic hostile groups and radical groups, unaffiliated terrorists with particular agendas and contingent capabilities. In investigating the structure of terrorist organizations, two aspects will be considered network and hierarchy. A terrorist may resort to either of the two or combine both of them (Philpott, D. 2007).

Contemporary groups organize and acclimatize opportunities that are accessible in the network model. Other groups acknowledging an ideology get more detailed effects on internal organization. Centralized influence and hierarchical structure is sought by the Leninist or Maoist groups. Terrorist more inclined to political ideologies majorly require an advanced hierarchical structure to be able to coordinate intentional terrorist violence through political action. For instance, cease-fire negotiations andor evading particular targets due to the political mileage embedded to it.

In deed, al-Al-Qaida, serves as an example that has emanated from a hierarchical structure to a more advanced networked organization. There are phases of hierarchy that are evident in senior leaders to ease operational coordination. There are affiliated networks that execute their actions on a more general guidance on waging terror. Groups with little connection with al-Qaida may carry out their terrorism acts as a result of the ideological statements of senior al-Qaida superiors.

It is believed that the organization and movement of groups can explain terrorism. In the case when a smaller group moves against a superior group creating casualties, it is at that point when that terrorism evolves. It is also believed that the organization and structure of terrorist groups are similar to those of communication and transportation networks. Terrorists organize themselves in a network of minute logistical structures. A node is where information, weapons or personnel are converged. This node is the critical point of target for counterterrorist dealings and operations. Once the node is destroyed, the whole networking system also collapses.

It is difficult to fathom a comprehensively the terrorist image. Terrorist behavior and intentions cannot be documented because it is always in fluxes. In other words, it changes depending on the historical, political, and social surroundings.  Terrorism is a political aspect and far from crime or psychopathology. Terrorist are very intelligent and tactful in that they will adapt a new operation dissimilar from the old once they learn that there are efforts to profile it. For instance, in the case of suicide bombers who come from varying backgrounds not with any single description or identity.

Clash of Civilizations
World politics indicates a journey backwards leading to long-established spirit of rivalism among nation states (Huntington, S. 1993). He notes further that the principal cause of conflict in the modern world will not be fundamentally ideological or economical but it will be of a cultural nature. The major conflicts in the global politics will take place among nations and groups of unique civilizations. In deed, the clash of civilizations will be the rationale behind battle lines in the future days. The diversities in power and quest for military, economic and institutional dominance are the major instigators of the conflict in civilizations between the West and the rest of civilizations. Relativism in values and beliefs, are the other causes of such conflict. It is believed that the conflicts and convulsions from Muslim World must be sought from Islam itself.

The September 911 attacks have not been considered as mass murder criminal acts instead they are regarded as acts of war on United States, a reaction to their way of life and in deed their civilization. It is sad to note that the response to those criminal acts through use of coordinated and well-structured international investigative police or intelligence support, which is the widely advocated means, was undermined. Instead, declaration of wars on Afghanistan and Iraq became the choice and this was not the better option as it occasioned loss of more lives hence increasing the temperatures of acts of terror and violence.

Anarchist and Socialist Movements of the Nineteenth Century
Anarchism is believed to be a type of a social movement. Pierre-Joseph regards anarchy as the defiant and more so, a society without legal structures or government (cited in. Ostergaard, G. n.d.). He further notes that classical anarchism has a threefold classification namely Libertarian Socialism, Marxian Communism and Social Democracy.

The procedures in libertarian socialism in a bid to attain set goals and objectives is that the subjects involved may carry out their operations voluntarily and either peacefully or through violence. Anarchism is believed to be the basis of acts to terrorism due to its violent nature. Anarchism is movement in the social and political order which advocates the eradication of a structured and systematic government and the entire social hierarchy.

Fomenters of political violence need to be apprehended so that their malicious attempts may not spread therefore, causing harm to every body else. However, this process should be carried out within legal and just measures. Governments should solicit the intervention of international bodies like U.N. in their quest to apprehend the culprits so that they ensure they are following a just cause. Unilateral reinforcement may occasion more violence therefore, approaching it within a unified and more acceptable way renders the whole process legitimate and legal.

Criminal should be sought wherever they are and be put to justice for their wrong doings. None should be let to go scot free. However and as stated above every thing should be done according to the international standards and policies and in conformity of the laws in the state so long as they reflect the common good.

We have seen the various definitions of terrorism from different perspectives although most of the definitions have a common or rather similar ground. They regard terrorism as a pre-meditated course of action aimed at violence justification deriving from political, ideological and religious convictions and ideologies. I concur with these illustrations of terrorism. The cultural connotation of terrorism gets more emphasis in the reflections given by the theories of Samuel Huntington and Thomas Barnett. The clash of civilizations is a convincing interpretation of terrorism today. I concur with the view that terrorism is triggered by past historical hostility that translates to violence and terror acts.

Different civilizations should re-evaluate their past relationships with other civilizations so that they night address those historical grudges. In this era of democracy and affirmation of sovereignty among states, no civilizations should regard itself superior or as the best civilization. This only breeds hatred and animosity and for sure, acts of terror become the hit back and a way of re-affirming sovereignty.

Social Awakening through Police Internship

With the field of expertise that has been my lifes goal, I had been benefited with the opportunity to witness firsthand, not only the intricacies and complexities, but also the privileges that are inherent with the profession that I aspire to endeavor in the near future.  It has been a rich and rewarding experience that caused to strengthen my resolve on what I truly wanted to become.  Perhaps more importantly, my internship opened my awareness on the reality that peace and order is not exclusively the responsibility of Police Departments that we, as individual citizens of our society, possesses of the inherent obligation and duty in the preservation and protection of peace, in our quest to make our communities a safe place to live.

Generally, police internships are composed of observation and actual field work, understandably with more emphasis given on observation for the safety of both the police officer assigned to supervise the intern, and the intern himself.  Initial agendas include the mandatory introduction of departmental sections, from the Records and Training Section, and the Communications Department.  Here, the intern is made aware of the technical complexities that assure the reliable flow of communications, which is one of the most important necessities in an efficient police work, especially in assuring that roving patrols are consistently situated in strategic places, and has immediate reinforcements if situations would require for these.  On the other hand, the Training Section assures that each police officer maintains his optimal levels of competitiveness, particularly in using his service firearm, as the need to employ such measures are always present in their lines of duty.  Likewise, during this initial phase of the internship, the intern is introduced to the inner workings of the City Court, as this would eventually be one of the places that an officer would have to frequent in the course of performing his duties.

The activities in Police Internship are not limited to the precincts premises.  They include several community-based institutions where police influence, either as a guardian of the law or as counselors, is exerted for the betterment of the community.  This include the Drug Abuse Resistance Operation, or more commonly known as  D.A.R.E., where they educate children of school age on the importance of being able to resist the temptation of drugs, especially those stemming from peer pressure.  Another involves assistance programs for senior citizens, and direct participation in several neighborhood crime watch, whose main agenda is aimed at the safety of the most treasured establishments in our communityour homes.

Criminal Investigation
As the intern gets acquainted with the duties that are inherent in the profession of Police Officers, he then embarks on more challenging, more real-life dilemmas that are prevailing in our society he gets to be a firsthand witness in criminal investigation procedures.  However, contrary to popular perception, criminal investigation does not include among its concerns, the duties of a private detectiveinvestigator.  It is solely concerned with the investigations of suspected violations of certain laws in order to help prevent its future occurrences andor solve the crimes committed.

Of special personal interest on my internship were the investigations on crimes committed by juveniles.  Particularly, it was because of the apparent loss of opportunities that made my experience with these violators of law, a saddening experience.  In spite of their young years, they have already allowed their names to be permanently tarnished by crimes that would undoubtedly prove to be an immense disadvantage on their lives.

Included in Criminal Investigations trainings are the processes involved in case preparation of criminal cases and courtroom testimonies.  In the said procedures, I learned what makes a case stand against the gruesome legal debates that are common in courtrooms, and what technicalities are needed to ensure that the apprehended criminals will not escape the law simply because of insufficient preparation of evidences.

The last activity included in Criminal Investigations is the Surveillance Operations.  Because of the dangers that are inherent in this particular operation, we, as interns, were only permitted to participate in the more subtle variations of this type, such as those concerned with vices and the lesser transactions on narcotics.  Usually, as in my case, it involved observer roles in buy-bust operations that usually included only a minimal amount of illegal substance.                                      

Operations Division
In the course of my Police Internship, the most enjoyable of all the activities was the Patrol Operation, which falls under Operations Division.  Contrary to what is commonly perceived, this involves various procedures whose main goal is aimed at keeping the streets safe for the citizens of the community.  Most basic of these is traffic enforcement, where the main purpose is to minimize the occurrences of traffic bottlenecks through ensuring that all drivers are within the specified limits in vehicle speed, tonnage, and in several regulations such as in driving under the influence of alcohol.  This may be done by directly manning strategic locations where the possibilities of such traffic violations are higher, or by engaging in roving vehicle patrols to enhance police visibility and thereby discouraging such offenses.

Another method that is employed in Patrol Operation is the Motorcycle Unit.  Primarily, this is similar with the regular patrol vehicles, only, this unit is utilized either for faster deployments of police forces or as advance parties for dignitary convoys.  The obvious advantage with the Motorcycle Unit is its adaptability to different kinds or terrain, making pursuit operations, with the appropriate reinforcements, easier and safer tasks.

Perhaps what the general populace does not know is that the K-9 Unit falls under the responsibilities of Patrol Operations.  Here, dogs undergo an extensive training program that appropriately characterizes them according to their fortes.  Thus, they may be categorized as a public order enforcement dog, search and rescue dog, detection dog, as a cadaver dog, and even as a combination of two or more of these.  Each of these dogs, after finishing their training from a dully-recognized dog handler, usually a police officer himself, accompanies the police officers in field operations, according to their specialization and the emergency to be responded with.  

Lastly, my experiences with the Emergency Response Team, which is also a part of Operations Division, benefited me with the opportunity to witness firsthand the high level of specialization that is needed in performing the duties tasked on the police force.  Typically, every member of this team is highly trained in various specializations such as in lost person searches, hostage rescue operations, civil disobedience, crowd management, in providing specialized security arrangements, and in other situations that require a higher level of a trained police force.  One of the distinct characteristics of this team is their constant readiness to be deployed in the fastest possible notice, with the appropriate competitiveness that is higher than that of a regular police team.  Hence, to be properly equipped with the necessary skills needed in being a member of the Emergency Response Team, a police officer needs to undergo additional trainings that are especially aimed for this purpose alone.

The opportunity to be a police intern benefited me with the firsthand knowledge of being able to learn the difference between my academic training and their practicality in real-life situations.  It has widened my views on the real magnitude of responsibilities that police officers inherently possess as they pursue to accomplish what they had vowed in their profession.  Likewise, I have learned that our common and ultimate aspiration to make our communities a much safer place should not be completely relied upon from the police force, as each of us has an inherent duty to contribute his share for the betterment of our society.

Managing the Department of Homeland Security

The possibility of local and international security threats against America has increased as a result of the impact of globalization, foreign policy and the increase of both legal and illegal immigration. The department of homeland security was implemented through the amalgamation of twenty two agencies and charged with the task of predicting, understanding, preventing and dealing with any security threats and the aftermaths and also responding to natural disasters. This was also meant to provide a more united and effective front in the fight against terrorism. Recently, the department of homeland security has received a lot of criticism on the charges that it has been largely ineffective in meeting these mandates. Critics have implied that the homeland security system is mismanaged and laden with bureaucracies causing it to be a big waste of public resources. The highly popularized data mining fiasco that resulted in the loss of more than forty two million, the loss of three hundred and fifty million dollars as a result of failed contracts and the dismal performance after hurricane Katrina have led to a decrease of public faith in the ability of the department to protect the American population. There is therefore need for major reforms in the management of the department to ensure efficiency and increase public trust in their ability.

The department of homeland security was implemented through the Homeland Security Act of November 2002, after the September 11 terrorist attacks, in an attempt by the US government to protect its citizens from local and international threats (Cole, 2003). To achieve this mandate, the US government further instituted several measures which included reorganization of the security and intelligence arms and increase in federal homeland security funding (Flynn, 2004). This led to increased coordination between security bodies and better efficacy in anti terrorist efforts. There have been no other terrorist attacks on United States after the September 11 attacks. Analysts have critiqued the homeland security department largely due to the fact that it is not clear whether they have had anything to do with the lack of international security threats or this has been as a result of other factors including increased public awareness (Mueller, 2006). To this regard, it is impossible to determine the exact impact of the homeland security department on international terrorist threats.

Policy discussions regarding the operation and role of the homeland security department have remained largely irrational stemming from fear of similar terrorist attacks, perceptions on the historical US stance on foreign relations and the repercussions of these past decisions. Politicians on the other hand are steering the American population towards achieving a perfect but unattainable form of security (Flynn, 2004). The result of this is the current disillusionment with the operation of the homeland security department. There is therefore need for all stakeholders to focus their efforts towards creating an effective, self sustaining homeland security department which is sorely based on responding to threat.

To this regard, the government should critically analyze the possibilities of external terrorist threats taking place in America. Since these threats are unlikely, the government should therefore allocate the available federal resources accordingly to ensure that they especially cater for more urgent local arms of security (Mueller, 2006). The department of homeland security has in the past taken up the large bulk of federal assistance on the assumption that they have more intensive resource demanding responsibilities than other departments (Mueller, 2006).Instead of over funding this department, the government should instead utilize foreign alliances to deal with the threat of Islamic fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda. In addition, there is need to invest on other arms of security especially the civil aviation departments, cargo inspection and air missile defense teams (Kent, 2006). This approach is more specific and therefore likely to prevent actual threats.

The department of homeland security is also laden with weak internal processes and a dire need for analytical capability. Analysts have also cited poor leadership skills and lack of attention leading to the department investing in projects which end up wasting the tax payers money (Flynn, 2004). A study carried out on the employees within the department of homeland security, concluded that most of these employees are unmotivated (Flynn, 2004).There is therefore need for proper leadership. Even in the presence of reformed organizations and processes, leadership translates resources to the much needed results (Cole, 2003). Capable leaders are therefore essential in bringing change and ensuring that the set polices are observed and the goals met (Williams, 2008).

One of the major reasons for the mismanagement has been due to the fact that congress currently lacks a specific approach to deal with the issues which hinder the department from ensuring national security. These issues can only be eliminated through specific committee hearings with the relevant stakeholders and congress (Koempel, 2007). The house and senate budget committees in particular should be involved in determining the allocation of resources (GAO, 2007). The current absence of a budget function for this department is responsible for the historical wastage of public funds and should be addressed by providing a consistent spending budgetary allocation based on the mission and agency involved. This will allow monitoring of expenditure and prevent misappropriation of resources (Mueller, 2006).

The department of homeland security should also utilize the American population to achieve its mandates. One of the key factors why America has remained relatively safe from the action of fundamentalists has been the continued support of the government by local Muslim communities within US. These local Muslim communities have severally expressed distaste over the action of fundamentalists and have so far refused to support them denying them a link and access to the US (Kent, 2006). The government should therefore invest its resources in increasing this resilience to ensure that these avenues remain closed (Kent, 2006).

Then homeland security department debate has largely been steered by politicians and also took root in a time when the country was vulnerable. This implies that most Americans are still divided along partisan lines in this issue and therefore their arguments are based on the fear and insecurity that stemmed after the September terrorist attacks (Cole, 2003). The existing irregularities in the homeland security department have therefore remained unaddressed as politicians use them to gain their popularity and critique the government at the expense of the nation.

The homeland security department requires a new niche of operations. After the September 11 attacks the government implemented the homeland security department and invested largely in the operations to ensure security and also instill public confidence (Cole, 2003). After the resulting attacks of US on several countries, analysts expected the terrorist threats to increase (Kent, 2006). The situation has however remained controllable and there is no more need for government and politicians to feed on the hysteria resulting from September 11 attacks (Kent, 2006). The endless war on terrorism should therefore be brought down a notch and the government should concentrate on other more urgent local issues (Cole, 2003). To this regard the department of homeland security should develop a new niche to justify its continued existence and consumption of public resources from that of preventing possible terrorism to actually controlling or preventing crime in America

There are currently many gaps within the operations of the department of homeland security that require address. Among these issues is the need to integrate local governments into the federal efforts (Flynn, 2004). In the past terror attacks, state and local governments played very integral roles in preventing more terror attacks and dealing with the consequences (Jarret, 2006). The Federal government has however continued ignoring them and has chosen to focus all the support on the department of homeland security (Flynn, 2004). As a result these various avenues of possible terrorist attacks have been left open. Skyscrapers and subway stations can only be effectively protected by the local agencies (Kent, 2006). There are possible avenues of closing this gap.

The department of homeland security needs to integrate local agencies more on their operations. The privacy regulation within the homeland department also needs to be regulated (GAO, 2007).Although congress already passed the patriot act, which was meant to augment intelligence and law enforcement departments in October 2001, there is still reluctance towards information sharing (Williams, 2008).

To this end the government is already creating an information sharing center between various state and federal databases. The reluctance of sharing information between the homeland security department and local agencies may foster security threats (Jarret, 2006). The need of this integration was further demonstrated by the dismal response of the department of homeland security after hurricane Katrina (Williams, 2008). This performance has caused Americans to loose confidence in the operations of DHS and has resulted on increased doubt on their competence in the event of a possible attack.

While the department of homeland security continues to utilize public resources, there has been no effective standard of evaluation. Local departments are evaluated based on the number of responses in emergencies, arrests, convictions and the trends of crimes within their jurisdictions. The department of homeland security has remained largely unevaluated and has insisted on using the lack of terrorism as the only valid criterion for measurement (Shapiro, 2007). Analysts have however cited the absence of crime years before the September attack and concluded that the lack of international terrorism in the last nine years is not a sufficient evaluation standard (Shapiro, 2007).

The department of homeland security should therefore implement a more objective standard of measurement bearing in mind that an overall perfect attainment of security is simply not possible. This is largely due to the fact that the US is one of the most developed countries in terms of infrastructure and architecture. There are therefore not sufficient federal resources to monitor each of the subway stations, skyscrapers, bridges, shopping malls, schools, gas pipelines and power plants (GAO, 2007). This implies that the absence or the presence of vulnerability should also never be used as a standard of assessing the efficacy of the department of homeland security.

There is therefore need for a shift of focus from possible vulnerability response to actual threat assessment and response (Shapiro, 2007). Such an evaluation standard will ensure that the government comes to the realization that there are very few threats if any at all. Most of these vulnerabilities are based on suspicion and fear of vulnerabilities and end up wasting tax payers money. A good example would be the current need for the last government to focus resources towards unearthing nuclear terrorists. These efforts largely stemmed from speculation and fear of possible attacks on the US. While it is necessary to protect Americans from possible attacks, to date, there has been no proof that there is any group or individual intending to use nuclear power to attack the US.

In the meantime, the federal government and the department of homeland security utilize more than nine billion dollars annually to implement and deploy possible counterattacks (Whittaker et al., 2007). The annual spending for the department of homeland security has also continued to escalate as they continue to implement these protective measures (Williams, 2008). In 2007, the department received fifty eight billion dollars (Whittaker et al., 2007). What is disquieting is that none of this money was used to prevent or deal with any actual terrorist threat. The government and the department of homeland security therefore need to shift focus towards actual threat assessment and action as opposed to vulnerability analysis.

The department of homeland security does not currently have mechanisms to allow the secretary of defense to intervene on the issue of resource allocation between the different agencies (Williams, 2008). In addition, there are no formal mechanisms to allow the secretary to analyze the risks and needs of these agencies and possible alternatives (Koempel, 2007). To cultivate better management, there is need for the secretary to redefine the PPBE process and ensure that the new process mandates a discussion of priorities with heads of the different departments.

In addition the secretary should access and pass the integrated planning guide before implementation (Williams, 2008).This will allow the individual departments trade off on their needs based on the available resources. A study on the role of nonpartisan support agencies of congress concluded that these agencies are essential in providing critical information which may be used by legislators in designing better avenues of resource allocation (GAO, 2007). To this regard, there is therefore need to implement polices which will ensure that all stakeholders keenly study and assess the aims of the administrators of the departments of homeland security.

The department of homeland security needs to work with the necessary stakeholders towards implementing a sorely threat based security strategy. This will allow them to attain specific invulnerability and ensure that the available resources are used towards this end. This will also prevent the department from wasteful spending and embarking in other distracting and unnecessary activities (Koempel, 2007)

There is also need for the department of homeland security to set specific guidelines. These will ensure that there are clear cut guidelines on how much to spend and how far their efforts need to go (Koempel, 2007). A key issue in the debate has been on the issue of American privacy (Koempel, 2007). There is need for policy makers to set specific polices on how much civil liberties and rights the ordinary citizen is expected to give up and how much distortion is expected, to ensure that the department of homeland security fulfills its mandates. Setting up the specific mandates will also ensure that public resources are not wasted as in the case of the data mining fiasco.

Currently, the department of homeland security is operating on the assumption that the enemy can access the US anytime they wish. This is however not true. Intelligence reports over the last few years have shown that the resources and access of terrorists is limited (Jarret, 2006). Although these groups can still evolve and innovate new ways of attack, there is need for the department to focus on the consistency of these attacks and the political ideologies behind them. These ideologies have resulted to repeated attacks on what these fundamentalist groups view as symbols of American power. Therefore the strategies, strengths and weakness of terrorist groups can be deciphered by US intelligence. Since the US has already deciphered their intent and avenues, there is therefore no need for this multilayered system approach which targets everyone everywhere. Instead, it is more effective for the department of homeland security to implement specific regulations towards specific threats.

In conclusion, the department of homeland security is integral in providing protection against possible terrorist threats. However, at the moment the risk for these threats is very minimal and yet the department continues to utilize public resources in most cases at the expense of other security departments. There have also been various protests over the increasing bureaucracies and inefficiency portrayed by the department even in responding to natural disasters. Leadership has also remained a one of contention. There is therefore need for major reforms to ensure the transformation of the management of the department of homeland security and address these issues. To this regard, the government needs to set up a better operating approach for DHS and appoint visionary leaders. There is also need to inculcate a form of sufficiency within the department. This will require the department to set up specific priorities and pursue them justifying their utilization of tax payers money. There need for the department to focus on implementing appropriate assessment measures which will asses the strength of polices which have been implemented and allow reforms where necessary.  If properly implemented these reforms will transform the management of the department of homeland security providing an effective front against international and local threats while still ensuring proper utilization of public resources. .

Zero Tolerance

Zero tolerance is a policy in which an offender of infraction of rules is given automatic punishment without considering the circumstances under which the offence was committed.  The policies are intended to eliminate undesirable behaviors in the society. Zero tolerance policies are meant to ensure that authority or the judicial systems do not change or discrete the penalties designated for the offence to fit the circumstances under which the crime was committed. The authority is required by the policy to impose the predetermined sentence or penalty without considering the culpability of the individual, the underlying circumstances or the criminal records of the offender. In many cases, the predetermined penalties may not be severe but are meant to eliminate the acts from the society completely. Zero tolerant policies have been successfully applied in different jurisdictions and are common in both official and unofficial policing around the world. They have been used to deter behaviors such as drug abuse, violence and misuse of facilities in schools and workplaces. However, zero tolerance policies are not without weaknesses and have been criticized by many sociologists (Holmes, 2005).

Zero Tolerance Policies
The idea of zero tolerance as applied in dealing with crime was first expressed in the 1970s when the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act was enacted in New Jersey. Zero tolerance inherited the principles of the act. In 1982, Wilson and Kelling expounded the ideas and the principle behind zero tolerance in their article Broken Windows which appeared in the Atlantic monthly. Although the article was not published in a peer reviewed journal of criminology, the article had a lot of impact. The term zero tolerance was however used ten years later.

Wilson and Kelling suggested that the zero tolerance policies if implemented will give the law enforcers a tool for repression of minor crimes. They argued that zero tolerance will effectively deal with homeless individuals and deter crimes that are associated with homeless people. They gave an example of a broken window in a building. If no one cares about repairing or replacing the broken window, there is a likelihood of vandal breaking another window. If no action is taken, they are likely to break into the house and may light a fire in there if it is unoccupied. They use the same to explain the accumulation of litter in the side walk which may get worse as time goes if no action is taken (Wilson  Kelling, 1982).

Zero tolerance has received a lot of criticism from a number of criminologists. One of the criticisms is based on the assumption that criminals are poor. This assumption led to the redefining of the problems facing the society such as poverty in terms of national security. This approach reduces crime in the streets and more so those committed by the ordinary members of the society. This approach has been considered ineffective in dealing with organized crimes as well as white collar crimes. Criminologists opposed to zero tolerance have argued that there is not evidence that the policies lead to reduction in crime rates. However, advocates of the policies have claimed that the policies have had a large impact in the reduction of crime. Despite these criticisms, zero tolerance has proved to be effective in dealing with deviant behaviors in several applications (Holmes, 2005).

Zero tolerant policies have proved effective in dealing with undesirable behaviors in several workplaces. Some of the institutions that have effectively employed zero tolerance policies include the law enforcement agencies and military, schools and other places of work. The absence of harassment and bullying in these places of work can be attributed to the adoption of zero tolerance policies against such behaviors (Holmes, 2005). The policies are used by administrators in many organizations and government agencies to underscore the organizations commitment in protecting individuals from harassment. However, the use of such policies has been opposed by some people because zero tolerance policies are subject to errors of omission and commission (Snider, 2004).

Application of zero tolerance in organization has also been accused of promoting ruthless management of the human resources in the organization.  There are cases where workers have feared the reaction of the administration on their fellow workers which makes them less willing to report undesirable behaviors to the authority. Workers have feared that if they report their fellow workers, they may be fired without considering the circumstances which made the worker to commit the offense. Zero tolerance have resulted in the perception that too much is likely to be done incase the worker is caught on the wrong side by the management. The ruthlessness of the management as a result of the zero tolerance policies in dealing with deviant workers affects the performance of the workers negatively (American Bar Association, 2004).

The United States has adopted a zero tolerance policy on the war against drugs. The laws against drugs enacted in the second half of the 20th century by President Reagan and President Bush apply the zero tolerance principles against the entry of drugs into the United States. The laws were initially meant to deter the transfer of drugs across the border. However, the law enforcement agencies have shifted their focus to the users applying the zero tolerance laws on those who are caught in possession of the drugs with the assumption that the punitive sentences on the users will cut off the demand for the drug and consequently solve the drugs problem in the society. There were no additional laws required to implement the no tolerance policies, rather the existing laws were to be strictly followed by the law enforcers and the criminal justice systems without leniency. Other countries such as Sweden, Russia, India and Italy have effected similar policies in their war against drugs (Lindstrom, 2006).

Zero tolerance policies have been considered more consistence due to its dichotomy of the use and non use of illegal drugs. The policies have equated all illegal drugs related crimes which are considered undesirable in the society. This is in contrast to the viewpoint of many people who maintains that the law should consider how harmful the drug is to the society. Zero tolerance laws do not consider whether the individual is a drug addict or an occasional user. Those opposed to zero tolerance policies application in dealing with drug abuse argue that the penalties should be more lenient to give room for the rehabilitation of the drug users (Lindstrom, 2006).

However, though the criminal justice system should consider the welfare of the drug users and aim at helping the individual to shed of the bad habit, it is important to remove drug users from the society as a means of deterring them. The official goal of any laws against illegal drugs use is to have a drug free society. This has been seen as the reason for the significant reduction of drug use in Sweden over the years. The government of Sweden focused its zero tolerance against drug use to the users rather than the distributors of the drugs. The government stopped giving judicial waivers to offenders accused with possession of drugs which were meant for personal use. In the late 1980s, the use of drugs that were not medically prescribed were made illegal and in some years later, the law enforcers were allowed to take urine and blood samples from suspected drug users. This zero tolerance approach has been endorsed by international organizations against illegal drug use such as the UNODC. The use of zero tolerance policies in Sweden has been rated as the main reason for the low prevalence of illegal drugs among its population though the interpretation of the data in Sweden has attracted some controversy (Tham, 1998).

In many countries around the world including the United States, zero tolerance policies have been used to deter driving when drunk. In the United States, 0.08 of alcohol is the legal limit for driver over the age of twenty one years. In Europe, countries such as Sweden, Germany and France use zero tolerance policies against driving under the influence of drugs. The classification of drugs that are covered by the zero tolerance to drinking and driving vary from country to country with some countries outlawing all drugs that are not prescribed by a doctor while others restrict alcohol only (Lindstrom, 2006).

The zero tolerance policies have also been effectively used in schools and colleges to deter behaviors that are not desirable among the students. The policies have been adopted by majority of the schools and colleges in North America. The main aim of the policy is to deal with the increased cases of drug abuse and violent behaviors among the children. There are cases of children or students bullying or harassing each other at school. Although there are juvenile judicial systems that are meant to deal with such situations, the need for less lenient penalties at school have been created to deter students from engaging in unlawful activities (Casella, 2003).

Zero tolerance policies in schools are concerned with the use or procession of dangerous weapons or drugs by the students, teachers, parents, workers or anybody within the vicinity of the school compound. Possession or use of drugs and weapons within the school compound will always attract an automatic penalty without the need to find out under what circumstance did the offender posses or use the item. The school administrators are deterred from reducing the penalty based on their judgment of the prevailing conditions or the severity of the offence. Due to the inflexibility of the zero tolerance laws in schools and colleges, they have been ridiculed as zero intelligence policies by some administrators and students (Noguera, 1995).

There have been a good number of educationists supporting the application of zero tolerance policies in the American schools. There are claims that the laws will create an environment that is appropriate for learning and growth of the students. The proponents of these policies have pointed out several incidences of school breakdown as a result of the authority carelessly handling indiscipline cases which has resulted in disorderliness in schools. Zero tolerance policies will eliminate such cases where the authority is likely to be lenient on serious indiscipline cases which may affect the school negatively. The supporters have also argued in favor of the increased publicity of the policies among the student arguing that the fear created is essential in deterring students from involving themselves from activities such as drug abuse and violence while in school (Casella, 2003).

The main assumption in the application of zero tolerance policies in organizations, schools and government agencies is that making the law inflexible will deter the potential criminal. This is because the criminal knows that no matter the reason or the circumstances under which the crime is committed a penalty will be imposed against him or her. This has been seen as an effective method of behavior modification where those who at a risk of committing such crimes are aware that the law may be unfair to them. This will induce the individual to take unreasonable measures to avoid committing such crimes. This is the basic principle behind laws all over the world. The laws should be such that the cost of committing the crime is high for individuals to use all possible means to avoid being caught on the wrong side of the law. This law applies in minor traffic offences to violent offences that risk the lives of other people. Zero tolerance policies have been proposed as the only policies that can be used to end the vice of corruption in the society. The argument in this case is based on the fact that if the judgment of corrupt individual is not subjective, less people will be encouraged to give or take bribes (Holmes, 2005).

Despite the adoption of zero tolerance policies by almost all schools in the United States, there is not enough evidence to support it effectiveness in the reduction of drug abuse among the students in American schools. The problem of drug abuse has persistently been a major problem facing American students. The students continue to meddle in illegal drugs and alcohol despite the strict zero tolerance laws. The negative effects of the unintended consequence of these policies are evident in almost all schools in the United States. The high number of suspensions as a direct consequence of these policies has had negative impacts on the student as well as the schools.  To some extent, the policies are neutral but there are cases of zero tolerance policies being applied discriminatively against minority children. Some schools have also been embarrassed by the policies in the eyes of the public (Casella, 2003).

Different groups have come out round in the opposition of the application of zero tolerance policies in schools. The courts in the United States as well as the United States Department of Education have struck down the zero tolerance policies in schools. Critics of the policies have argued that there are many cases where students have been subjected to very severe punishment as a direct impact of the zero tolerance policies. The basic argument in this case is that the American schools are turning into jails as a result of zero tolerance policies. For example, why should a student be expelled because of possessing a fingernail clippers in the school compound because the school has adopted a zero tolerance policies against possession of weapon The direct negative impact of the laws is that the students are unlikely to report their fellow students to the administration because of the fear that the authority will be unfair to the student. This way, the policies promote delinquency in schools rather than instilling discipline (Rowe  Bendersky, 2002).

The application of zero tolerance policies in the law enforcement have been accused of violating the international principles of policing. The policies are against the law enforcement code of conduct which stipulates international standards and ethics of law enforcers. The codes of conduct which was developed by senor police chiefs from different parts of the world specifies the basic duties of law enforcement officer as serving the society, protection of the innocent, protecting life and properties and ensuring that there is peace in the community. It is also the duty of the officers to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected and the principles of justice and equality are maintained. According to this international code of conduct, the law enforcers are expected to be courteous and fair when dealing with the offenders. They are expected to respect the citizens and treat them decently whether they have been suspected of criminal acts or not. Zero tolerance policies are against these basic codes of conducts of law enforcement. The policies discourage the involvement of members of the society in crime prevention. The citizens view the zero tolerance approach to crime prevention as brutal and militaristic. This discourages their active involvement in the programs to reduce the targeted crime. Zero tolerance laws have a tendency of destroying the good working relationship between the law enforcers and the general public. The involvement of the public in a crime prevention initiative is important for the success of such programs (Lindstrom, 2006).

The ineffectiveness of the zero tolerance policies is simply because the approach is against the basic principles which are necessary for the success of community policing. These requisites include accountability of the law enforcement officers, openness of the society on information related to crime and the ability of the society to cooperate with the law enforcement agencies. Zero tolerance laws do not give room for these important requisites (Robinson, 2002).

The policies neglect the basic practice in criminal justice, the investigation of each case.  It is wrong to treat all the cases the same without proper investigations. This always leads to unfair and unreasonable punishments being imposed on the offender. It is the role of the criminal justice system to ensure that the suspects are treated fairly. The little or no discretion given to the criminal justice system and the law enforcement agencies by the zero tolerance policies is a major weakness of the policies. The offenders are also likely to be involved in extreme crimes because they know the intensity of the penalty will not be determined by the gravity of the offence (Robinson, 2002).

Zero tolerance policies are policies that are put in place by the government, cooperate organizations, or schools to curb undesirable behaviors. The policies requires that a mandatory penalty be imposed to offenders accused of certain offences without considering the circumstances under which the offence is committed.  The policies have been used effectively in dealing with drug abuse, violence and harassment in workplaces, in the security agencies and schools. Though the policies are aimed at deterring individuals from committing such crimes, their applications have received a lot of criticism.

U.S. SUPREME COURT Antonin Gregory Scalia

He was the first Italian-American to be appointed to serve in the United States Supreme Court back in 1986 by the Republican President, Ronald Reagan. His judicial philosophy is considered to be leaning more on the conservative side of the court. Precisely, he strongly and openly throws his weight on the strict adherence to the originality of the constitution, at least in the textual sense of it and strongly opposes the notion of the constitution as a living document.

One of the most memorable court rulings that support his strong conservative judicial philosophy is his dissent vote which he entered in Lawrence  Garner v. State of Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) when the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Voting 6-3 the Supreme Court held that state (Texas) laws that considered consensual sodomy among adult men as illegal were against the Due Process Clause and indeed a violation of the basic rights of the victims. Scalia did not agree with this. He was quoted saying that the prevailing mood among the American public is purely against persons who openly declare their sexual orientations as gay or gay supporters. In fact, the situation is even worse when such people are influential in one way or other in their daily lives, for instance if they are school masters, accountants , business partners, politicians, etc. He boldly asserted that many Americans are keen to protect themselves and those they love against homosexual behaviors which according to him are immoral and misleading.

Even so, he defended his position by arguing that contemporary perceptions of sexual as well as other morality aspects of the society are just normal given the changing times. But the main reason as to why he entered a dissent vote is that he believed the gay community is imposing their opinions on sexual matters on the American public instead of using accepted persuasive and democratic channels.

Personal Criminological Theory

Over the years criminology has become a very important discipline. Criminologists try to explain the existence of crime in the society. To that effect, different scholars have developed theories to explain why some individuals develop deviant behavior. The theories form the basis of formulating mitigation measures that can be used to reduce the increased cases of criminal activities in the society. The theories explain why some people are more likely to turn into criminals while others have a very slim likelihood of developing deviant behaviors. My personal criminological theory is more or less an intersection of various theories that have been developed in the past (Cullen  Angnem, 2002).

Criminal behaviors in the society are as a result of several factors within the individual and in the society. Any member of the society is exposed to numerous forces depending on the environment. Individuals therefore commit crimes as a result of social and biological forces acting together. Every member of the society is aware of the consequences of crimes. However, they do go ahead and commit the crimes. It has also been noted that people tend to commit crimes with punitive consequences less when compared to crimes with more lenient penalties. This means majority of the crimes are as a result of free will where the criminal expects to benefit from the crime more compared to the risk he is exposing himself into. This can explain the lawlessness and high crime rates in unstable societies where the cost of the crime is outweighed by the benefits. This is based on the assumption that the criminal commits the crime when he or she has a conscious mind (Deflem, 2006).

However, even in cases where crime pays well, there are individual who are not motivated to commit crimes. On the other hand, in societies where the cost of crimes is very high, there are individuals who commit crimes. This suggests that there are some inherent traits in individual that make them more susceptible to influence by others or be motivated by the gains of crime to commit crimes. Otherwise, any of us would take a risk in a crime in anticipation of a gain. There are some biological and psychological factors that make some individuals more likely to commit crimes. This is in line with several suggestions that propose the presence of biological and psychological differences between criminals and non criminals (Hall et al, 2008).

The view of an individual about crime which is dictated by the gain the person associate with crime is a major factor that has resulted into increased number of criminal syndicates in the cities. The trend is more serious when the poor neighborhoods are considered where youth gangs are involved in various criminal activities such as murder, violence and drug trafficking. These criminal gang starts as a small gang in the residential areas and develop into a criminal group that command a large territory and eventually enters the national and international scene. As the group becomes larger and gains more influence as well as cooperation with other gangs, the benefits of their criminal acts increases. This forces them to be involved in more risky criminal acts (Hallsworth, 2005).

Sociologists have used different theories to explain this growing trend. The social structural theories have been very relevant in explaining this trend. However, even in a disorganized society, there are individuals who are law abiding while others turn into criminals. Moreover, young people are influenced by their peers and the prevailing environments in poor neighborhood to commit crimes because it pays. The criminal groups in these neighborhoods exist because their activities pay. This is the basic reasons why more and more people are motivated to commit crimes or join criminal gangs. Otherwise the presence of a criminal gang in the neighborhood is not enough to make young people turn delinquent. There are material rewards and benefits that are associated with crime that attracts them to commit crimes (Vito, et al, 2007).

It is not easy to influence a conscious individual to commit a crime without him first considering the potential benefits associated with the act as well as the consequences. The increased cases of juvenile offenders in the society may be associated with the structures in the society (Hall, et al, 2008).

Consider two environments with same number of criminal gangs and crime rate. In the first society, criminals are not different from the other members of the society and live in poverty. The likelihood of being punished as a result of crime is also high. In other words, the potential gains of crime are inexistence while the consequences are almost certain. In the second society, crime is the only way out of poverty life. Young people grow in a society where the rest of the societies live in poverty while those who turn into crime rise in the social ladder. In this society, crime pays. No matter the intensity of the social forces, the likelihood of an individual in the first society engaging in crimes is very low while an individual in the second society is more likely to be involved in crime.