Reference no: EM132266308
How does a criminal justice administrator speak truth to power? What if he or she knows, for example, that a particular activity or program does nothing to actually improve the organization or address crime in any way? Take, for example, the influence of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program on police activities and it acceptance among police administrators as an effective strategy to keep young people off drugs. Yet, there is no evidence that the DARE program does anything in relation to long-term drug usage among young people. The program may have other benefits that were unintended and positive, such as pulling communities together to address other issues of significance, for example, vacant buildings and gang activity.
1. At the end of the day, how do we speak to others, especially influential community members, about programs that are not effective, even if they are well liked by them?
2. Do we as criminal justice administrators have both a moral and legal obligation to speak out against something we know does not work?
3. How does politics influence the adoption or deletion of an activity or program in a criminal justice organization?
4. Is politics always a “dirty” word, or should we separate the negative connotations of politics from the political process as a way things get done in criminal justice organizations? Is this distinction noteworthy and valuable to criminal justice administrators?
5. Can you envision the political process ever not being a part of criminal justice administration?