Assessment of Policy and Procedure (Essay Sample)

432
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Title
Number
Date of Submission
Assessment of Policy and Procedure
For any institution to function smoothly there must be proper systems in place that govern the actions of the employees or agents. This is especially essential in institutions such as prisons and correctional facilities that directly impact the lives of the different inmates within the facility. Adelphi County Jail, like all other jails, is not exempted from the observation of these policies. In the case of Jack Jones, a number of key issues need to be addressed.
The first and most important issue that needs to be addressed is whether there exists any Fourth Amendment violations based on the actions of the Officer Anderson and Sgt. Belker. Indeed, there exists no avenue that allows inmates to be subjected to the exact same level of privacy that they would enjoy when free. This is because it is mandatory that all institutions, especially correctional facilities, put in place precautionary measures that are geared at ensuring safety of all inmates, while still respecting the inmates’ rights to privacy. In this light, there is nothing wrong with the conduct of Sgt. Belker and Officer Anderson.
Based on the actions of Joe Johnson, Officer Anderson and Sgt. Belker had suspected Joe of selling contraband cigarettes. Just as it is in every other County Jail, these two officers had to observe protocol and conduct a search of the inmates’ cell (Murphy, 2003). Just like the County Jail Procedure Directive on Cell Searches demands, both inmates had been removed from the cell. The entire process was followed to the letter, as is demanded by law. This action was completely justified, and is one that I fully support. The possibility that an inmate could be selling contraband goods, contrary to the institution’s policies, demands that a thorough search be conducted on the inmates’ cell.
A keen look into the property of inmate Joe Johnson reveals the presence of contraband cigarettes hidden in a pack of potato chips. Naturally, the presence of contraband in one inmate’s property presents the possibility of the fellow inmate being an accomplice to the act (Holmes, 2009). In this light, it is also necessary that both inmates’ properties be thoroughly searched, as was the case with Joe Johnson’s and Jack Jones’ shared cell. The actions taken by the officer and the sergeant are appropriate, justified, and fully observed the County Jail Policy and Procedure Directives (Murphy, 2003).
Appellate Court Decision Assessment
The decision by the Court of Appeals in the case of Christopher Carter vs. The State of Maryland is reflective of the situation involving Jack Jones and his conviction on first degree murder. While the court seemed to find Jones guilty of first degree murder, I believe that this conviction was not made from a neutral standpoint. The first and most pressing concern is the matter of the pieces of paper containing ‘details on the murder’ that were found in Jones’ cell. While the officers conducting the search were right to seize the written pieces of paper, the court was wrong to allow the admissibility of the exhibits in court. These documents should not have been admitted, based on the fact that they infringe on the Sixth Amendment rights of Jones, regarding the right to Counsel (Wissler & Saks, 1985). By seizing these documents and admitting them as evidence, the court essentially takes a ‘prejudicial stance’ on the case.
The admission of exhibits in court, that provide details, though not fully clear, on the crime, tend to create an inclination towards the prosecution‘s argument (Lily, 1978). These exhibits provide a sense of validation to the speculation that any individual may have had regarding the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. While the exhibits do contain details of the murder, the use of these details as evidence of guilt results in a biased trial for the appellant. It is essential to the judicial process that a verdict is delivered after an unbiased judicial process. Just like in the case of Carter vs. State of Maryland, the use of such exhibits as evidence does influence the judicial process, and any verdict that may have been reached at through the examination and admission of such information as evidence should be revoked (Green, 1941 ). Just like Carter, Jones does actually deserve a re-trial that should be conducted with the exhibits prevented from being admitted as evidence. Instead, such exhibits should be only limited to use in cross-examinations, and not admitted as evidence.
In addition to this, the use of the exhibits presented by the prosecution in the case of Jones essentially infringes on the appellant’s right to Counsel, as demanded by the Sixth Amendment. This is because the use of information that was prepared by the appellant for his attorney as evidence in a court of law is essentially an infringement of client-attorney privilege. In addition to this, it also infringes on the attorney-work product privilege. Although the officers would have inadvertently disclosed the information on the exhibits 27 and 28, their admission as evidence is the actual infringement (Murphy, 2003). It presents the court with the dilemma of preventing bias in a case where such evidence is a trigger of bias in its own self. The case of Carter vs. State of Maryland is very highly similar to that of Jones vs. State of Maryland. In this light, the appellate court’s decision to grant Carter a retrial would be the best verdict in the case of Jones vs. State of Maryland. The actions taken by the prosecutor’s office leave plenty of room for retaliatory litigation by the defense due to the infringement on privilege.
Assessment on Policy and Procedural Changes
The Policy and Procedure Directives at the Adelphi County Jail in Maryland, and to a larger extent the rest of Maryland, should be altered to reflect key decisions that the rule of law recognizes (Murphy, 2003). The admission of information gathered in a manner similar to that of Jones vs. State of Maryland should be prevented, seeing that it infringes on the appellant’s rights while creating avenues for the development of bias. It is quintessential that these directives are changed to reflect the new outlooks. For instance, directives that regulate the ‘Conduction of Searches in Cells’ should be changed to reflect the decision that officers shall not be allowed to confiscate property that is prepared by an inmate for their attorney (Djankov et al., 2003). Seeing that this is a breach of attorney-client privilege, changing the directives to reflect such changes works to improve the judicial process. This is largely based on the fact that the Appellate Court in the case of Carter vs. State of Maryland revokes the use of such information as evidence. The use of such information only in cross-examinations ensures a fair process that is devoid ...