Terrorism plots against the United States have caused the government to create the Department of Homeland Security with the hope of leveraging federal, state, and local police agencies; intelligence agencies; and immigration agencies to cooperate in communicating findings and creating joint efforts to stop threats of terrorism or confront a terrorist attack.
The current threat of terrorism has made many legislatures in Congress think about the United States combining all the police agencies into one national police organization. The centralization of power would stop the discombobulated nature of the 3 government levels of police and provide a clear, overall standard on how to police not only terrorism acts but crime in general.
Please answer the following questions. As you answer each question you must provide support or evidence that will enhance and empirically prove your answers. Academic criminal justice articles or real-life criminal justice findings that are not found in journals or other academic sources must be used in supporting your answers. Please use APA style for all cited sources including your resource page.
- Should the United States combine all the police agencies into one national police organization? Why or why not?
- If you must consolidate the police, would you have to do the same to the criminal justice system? How would you create and establish such a police organization?
- Do you believe that the establishment of terrorism as a crime that can be committed domestically has changed community policing? How? Why? Provide examples.
Consider the facts of the following case when answering the questions below:
Dale and Mike Parak were twin brothers and best friends. They spent their entire lives looking out for each other’s interests. While growing up, the two were inseparable. They played sports together, double dated frequently, and attended the same university. They grew closer as they aged, they got married at about the same time, and eventually both were divorced. After they retired from their jobs, they decided to live together to save money, and they still enjoyed each other’s company.
When he was 70-years old, Mike was diagnosed with cancer. Doctors predicted he had about 6 months to live. The brothers, however, agreed that Mike should not suffer. Mike and Dale wrote and signed a note stating that they decided to commit suicide. Dale broke 20 tranquilizers into Mike’s evening meal and watched as he ate it. Yet when Dale checked on Mike one hour later, Mike was still alive. Dale panicked. He took a .38-caliber revolver from his desk and shot Mike, killing him instantly. Dale then went into the kitchen and took a handful of tranquilizers. He did not die. He awoke the next morning as somebody pounded on the front door. It was a neighbor who, seeing that Dale was dazed and confused, decided to call an ambulance and the police.
The responding police officer conducted an investigation, and Dale was arrested and charged with the murder of his brother, Mike. The prosecutor, although noting it to be a difficult case, pursued the case because she thought no citizen had the right to decide when someone should die. Dale Parak pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 5 years in a maximum-security prison. (Note: This was the lowest sentence that could be given to a defendant convicted of his crime.)
- According to the definition of justice you provided, was this sentence just? Why or why not?
- If you were the prosecutor in this case, would you have charged Dale Parak? Why?
- If you were the judge in this case, how would you have sentenced Dale Parak? Why?