Module 6: Experiences and Processes in the Criminal Justice System
Module 6
Module 6’s readings will focus on the application of those broad principles discussed to this point in the course. The readings will discuss multiple aspects of access to justice to include victim credibility, evidence testing, and representation during the process. The reading will also address the individual roles and actors that make up the justice process. Consider how the discretion exercised by these individuals influences one’s path through the criminal justice system.
Objectives: Module 6
Following the completion of this module, students will be able to:
- Describe issues facing those seeking access to justice
- Explore the decision points of the criminal process
- Describe the experiences of those involved with the criminal justice system
- Critique the role of discretion in the criminal justice process
Assigned Readings: Module 6
Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2009). Banished: The new social control in urban America. Oxford University Press.
- Voices of the Banished (p. 103–140)
- Banishment Reconsidered (p. 141–158)
Lippman, M. (2021). Law and society (3rd ed.). SAGE.
- Chapter 5. Access to Justice and Legal Ethics (p. 178–208)
- Chapter 7. Criminal Courts (p. 243–273)
Journal Articles:
- Campbell, B. A., Menaker, T. A., & King, W. R. (2015). The determination of victim credibility by adult and juvenile sexual assault investigators. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 29–39.
- Spohn, C. & Sample, L. L. (2013). The dangerous drug offender in federal court: Intersections of race, ethnicity, and culpability. Crime and Delinquency, 59(1), 3–31.
- Valentine, J. L., Sekula, L. K., Cook, L. J., Campbell, R., Colbert, A., & Weedn, V. W. (2019). Justice denied: Low submission rates of sexual assault kits and the predicting variables. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(17), 3547–3573.
Assessment: Module 6
Quizzes and a series of questions related to the readings will be used to assess your comprehension and understanding of the concepts discussed in the assigned materials. Responses for Questions 1 and 2 should be 1–2 paragraphs in length (1-page maximum length for each question) and must thoroughly address all parts of the assigned questions. Responses to Question 3 should be 1 paragraph in length (approximately half a page).
Your response should be based on your understanding of the material, please provide direct answers to each question, not summaries of the assigned readings. The questions are structured to require that you think analytically and critically about the material when providing your response. The assigned questions are about the theories, ideas, topics, etc. discussed in the readings, not the findings of the individual readings assigned. Assigned readings serve as an example of concepts discussed in the course, but they should not be interpreted as the definitive position related to an area of research. If your response focuses primarily on explaining the results of an assigned reading, it is unlikely that you are addressing the assigned question. If you find yourself simply summarizing or paraphrasing the material described in the reading when addressing the question, stop, review the assigned question, and consider how your response addresses the concepts discussed throughout the module. Additionally, when addressing Question 3, you should be describing common theme(s) present across all assigned articles. The underlying question for Question 3 is, why were these articles assigned together?
In your answers, do not use direct quotations from any sources. When providing support for your positions or examples to illustrate your points you may draw on the assigned readings, academic journal articles, or books. Please do not reference websites, magazines, newspaper articles, or other non-academic sources. Additionally, support for positions or examples may not be drawn from your individual opinions or experiences (See the “Helpful Information and Examples” page on the course homepage for a discussion of the difference between taking an academic position and a personal opinion.).
Be sure to address all portions of the assigned questions. APA style must be employed in your assignments for citations, formatting, and references. Please include only one combined reference section for all responses. Instances of plagiarism will result in a score of zero for the assignment, and the use of direct quotations will result in a 50% reduction in score.
Please answer the questions below:
- According to the findings of Spohn and Sample (2013), elements of the uniform sentencing guidelines are not followed consistently in the three federal court districts that they obtained their data from when evaluating the legitimate reasons (i.e., legal variables) for increasing the presumptive sentence of an offender. How should decision makers in the criminal justice system interpret and respond to these findings in the context of equality and access to justice, as discussed by Lippman (2021)? Explain your reasoning.
- As we have previously read, Black’s theory suggests that law is quantifiable and predictable, but we see that many extralegal factors influence SAK submissions (Valentine et al., 2019) and perceptions of victim credibility (Campbell et al., 2015) when engaging the criminal justice system. Do all individuals have equal protection through the law based upon these findings? Why or why not?
- Identify and describe the theme(s) (other than social control) present in the assigned journal articles that link all of the articles on a common concept. Explain how and why you have come to that position.
Please upload your response here (Module 6) as a Word (.doc or .docx) file. Your response is worth 50 points.
You will have one opportunity to take the Module 6 quizzes. You must read the assigned material in Lippman (2021) before attempting each quiz. The quizzes are timed (40 minutes), and you will not have sufficient time to hunt for the answers to all questions without first reading the material. Each quiz is worth 40 points.
Module 6 is worth a total of 130 points.