Philosophy and approach are pegged on the perception, people, place and the products and services. It has been noted that the elements are intrinsic and critical in refining the inner vision of an individual. Individual rights are rights held by individuals while group rights are rights held by groups (Bernstein, 2011). It is argued that group facilitation is steered by specific individual rights. Individual rights have been historically represented by group rights, a concept that has been controversial over the decades. Individual rights according to the Western culture are propelled by economic freedom and political aspects, in the same culture, group rights are represented by social control (Bernstein, 2011).
Individual rights in the Western culture are more of dealing with issues of equality as in the eyes of the law, and the same concept means protection in the eyes of the State. It has been noted that people spotting punishment in the legal systems barely indulges themselves in uncalled for behaviors (Bernstein, 2011). China has proved that controlling individual rights contributes to the control of the whole community.
Public protection is characterized by guarding people in the society from the public scrutiny, it has been noted that public protection is attributed to offenders under rehabilitation (Bernstein, 2011). In the United Kingdom, there is Multi-Agency Public Protection Authorities (MAPPA). MAPPA is operated by probation, police, social services, prisons, government arms and voluntary organizations. It is argued that violent and sexual crimes have long term and serious implications to the society; MAPPA is concerned on re-evaluating the risk portrayed by the offenders after the rehabilitation. Public protection is done for the best interests of the society.
Rewarding in criminal justice is a model of reinforcing a particular behavior, it has been noted that rewards are used as incentives; rewarding takes diverse shapes depending on the target individual (Kashtan, 2012). It is argued that rewards are characterized with appetitive stimulus in altering the initial behavior. In the same way, rewards in the criminal justice can be used in acquiring particulate information. Primary rewards identifies with food and successful aggression among others; while secondary aggression identifies with the money and the like. It is argued that rewards are better in modifying a certain behavior rather than punishments (Kashtan, 2012).
Punishments in the criminal justice identifies with penalties and installing discipline. It is argued that punishment is more of authoritative in nature, in the sense that it involves imposition of unpleasant or undesirable trait. Punishments have the abilities of being carried out in a legal system (Kashtan, 2012); as observed in penology, corrective facilities and imprisonment. There are a number of justifications that encourage punishments identifying with rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitations and deterrence; in such cases the wrong doers are separated from the common people in the streets.
There are a number of immoral means applied in shaping interrogations in the desired aspects, some of the models identifies with lying. Detectors in the last decade have found it difficult detecting deception and lies depending on the context and the environment (Rosenstand, 2012). Investigators trained in spotting lies argue that in law enforcements, there are a number of bodies involved in criminal investigations: namely, private investigators, Criminal Investigation Department, Detectives, Griffin Investigators and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Investigations are conducted in finding the truth of a matter on a contentious subject.
Ethics is a motivation based on what is right or what is wrong depending on the moral rules and values. It is argued that ethical decision making processes in criminal justice can be done in a utilitarian approach, in the fairness approach and in the common good approach among others (Rosenstand, 2012). Utilitarian approach of ethical decision making processes assesses actions depending on the outcomes and the consequences. It has been noted that utilitarian approach nets the greatest number and the greatest good, while at the same time cultivates the least amount of suffering. Utilitarian argues that the interests of each and every entity are pegged on equality.
Fairness approach in ethical decision making focus on equity and fair distribution of harm and good, the society enjoys equal social costs and social benefits depending on the prevailing situations (Rosenstand, 2012). It is argued that people has the rights of being treated equally; those perceived as unequal to diverse attributes should be treated in a proportionate and fair way.
Common good approach of ethical decision making is inclined on ethical dilemmas, common good approach of ethical decision making is inclined to the individual attributes as part of the larger community, in the sense the model shares certain attributes. Common good approach is more of after protecting the general public of the society in sustaining a community (Rosenstand, 2012).
Criminal justice is therefore critical in upholding the deterring, social control, sanctioning and mitigating crime to the people who violate the laws through rehabilitation efforts and penalties. People who have been accused of committing crime are protected by law against prosecution power abuse and investigatory abuse. Ethics is used in guiding what is wrong or what is right in the society. Balancing issues ensures sound decision making processes (Rosenstand, 2012).
Bernstein, D. E. (2011). Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Kashtan, M. (2012, October 22). Punishment and Reward. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from Psychologytoday.com: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/acquired-spontaneity/201210/punishment-and-reward
Rosenstand, N. (2012). The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.