criminal justice field

 

For this final discussion, we will consider the value of training and experience. In the criminal justice field, managers generally have been promoted from within, ensuring that they bring experience to the leadership position. However, formal education may be lacking.

Which has more impact in the preparation of a leader: experience or training? Why? Does the answer to this question differ between criminal justice organizations and the business world?
When you think about an effective leader in your own work experience, what specific qualities or traits made that leader so effective?
What obstacles will an “experienced” manager face, if required to supervise employees who are better-educated and better-trained? If you were in this situation, as manager, how would you address the tension that would exist?
How can leaders in criminal justice develop skills in areas where they are deficient? What are the organizational conditions that can facilitate this leadership training? Explain the techniques and theories that can be adopted.
Cite any sources using APA format on a separate page using APA guidelines.

 

Sample Solution

hat Locke’s work is still highly relevant today, and plays a key role in understanding the modern use of prerogative powers at the behest of the executive; Lockean prerogative theory is the basis of a large amount of contemporary scholarship and one may appreciate the echoes of these constitutive ambiguities in the contemporary theory and obdurate practice of emergency powers. There are a number of key theorists regarding this approach to the assessment of the use of prerogative by the executive, allowing an expansive insight into the practice of Lockean theory in modern society.

Citing Locke directly, American political scientist Jack Goldsmith discusses the mobilisation of Lockean theory during post 9-11 contemporary policy debate during the Bush administration of the early 21st century. Such declarations of crisis powers also operate in the ambiguous space between the legal and the extra-legal, and were central to most of the subsequent emergent contemporary debate and literature on the ‘legality’ of extra-legal powers.

In conclusion, although Locke makes an effort in order to charge the legislature with some degree of authority over that of the executive upon the practice and enforcement of prerogative powers, the extent to which this theory provides and equal share in the scope of
power between such bodies is widely contested. Within the boundaries that Locke sets for the use of executive prerogative, the extent that Locke’s model provides exacting requirement of single-agent executives who act in the contrary or absence of the letter of the
law leaves such a gap for tyrannous actions in the event of the emergence of a power vacuum where normative law does not hold authority. Therefore, although this theory is a useful lens through which to view the dilemmas and debates of contemporary crisis governance, Locke’s theory of prerogative is not a solution to the concerns or critiques of prerogative powers, namely the resulting imbalance of power between the executive and the legislative.