CRIMINAL JUSTICE2 Criminal Justice Integrity refers to the reliability of moral principles and behaviors shown by an individual who associates with others in performing contrasts and exhibits honesty in the liberation of trust. Authority is the power executed by an individual concerning his command or jurisdiction. Whereas discretion of power refers to the power granted by laws to a high official, ahead of state among others to exercise individual discretion based on particular conditions(Molander, 2016). They are similar in that they are applied in the justice process.However, the difference is that integrity is consistent, authority is exercised based on one’s command while discretion of power may differ based on the prevailing situation. When addressing an adult defendant, the role of integrity in the aspect of criminal justice is that it is the main prerequisite that established a functional and effective system of resolving legal disputes and thus safeguards the defendant’s human rights as it facilitates transparency (Dixon, 2016). Authority advocates for appropriate and effective implementation of misconduct policy urgencies concerning the search of evidence, investigate period and information offered to the public prosecutors. Moreover, the discretion of power allows for the contradiction of rules by authorities in the criminal justice system subject to the case having obligatory sentences. Thus, discretion of power results in a disparity. Besides, the discretion of power based on the jurisdiction allows the prosecutor to review all police referrals and upholds a full responsibility of the court intake screening. Hence, based on the discretion that the front-end juvenile decision procedures involve, it does not consider the rules of the court and the prosecutor thus affecting the court operations on how minors are handled. When addressing a juvenile defendant, Miller, Montgomery in 2016 advocated that “children are constitutionally different from adults and thus must be given opportunity to show
CRIMINAL JUSTICE3 their crime did not reflect irreparable; and if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored ”,(Simmons & Florida, 2017).The role of integrity, in the juvenile court system, exhibits overlap in the roles of individuals working in the justice system. The judicial personalities are obligated to perform with integrity. Evidence should not be ignored by the prosecuting attorney of the innocence of the minor to achieve a successful prosecution. Hence, every individual have to act with integrity while upholding the moral principles and the basic legal principles that define juvenile justice. Additionally, authority in the juvenile court system allows legislatures to select to exclude particular minors from the system provided there is no presence of impermissibly discriminatory. Besides, the process of assigning adjudicatory jurisdiction involves the rational analysis of functional process arguments since it does not involve fundamental rights. Furthermore, the roles for integrity, authority and discretion of power exhibits changes when going from adult to juvenile cases and vice versa, because juvenile offenders show deficit impairing their ability to effectively participate in the adjudicative process because of mental immaturity(Zimring, 2018). Hence, it results in differences in integrity, authority, and discretion of power exercised in juvenile and adult defendant’s cases.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE4 References Dixon, D. (2016). Integrity, interrogation and criminal injustice.The Integrity of Criminal Process. Oxford: Hart. Molander, A. (2016).Discretion in the welfare state: Social rights and professional judgment. Taylor \& Francis. Simmons, R. v., & Florida, G. v. (2017). Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016).Reaffirming Juvenile Justice: From Gault to Montgomery, 69. Zimring, F. E. (2018).American juvenile justice.Oxford University Press.