What Are The Purposes Of Our Criminal Justice System? ✓ Solved

What are the purposes of our criminal justice system? In you

What are the purposes of our criminal justice system? In your opinion, is one goal more important than another? Can a criminal defendant be prosecuted twice for the same act? Define each of the following: white collar crime, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and RICO. What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? What is a whistleblower? What conflicting ethical duties might a whistleblower encounter? Answer each of the following 5 questions in a short answer essay format. Be sure to use examples to support your analysis.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

The criminal justice system pursues multiple, sometimes competing goals: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution. These objectives shape policy and practice, influence prosecutorial decisions, and guide sentencing. This paper addresses the system’s purposes, the doctrine against double prosecution, definitions of white-collar crime, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, RICO, an overview of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the nature of whistleblowing and its ethical tensions. Examples and authoritative sources are cited to support the analysis (NIJ; FBI; Cornell LII).

Purposes of the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system serves five core purposes. Retribution seeks proportionate punishment for wrongdoing and societal moral condemnation (NIJ, n.d.). Deterrence aims to discourage criminal acts by making the cost of offending outweigh benefits; general deterrence influences the public at large, while specific deterrence targets the individual offender (NIJ, n.d.). Incapacitation removes dangerous offenders from society to prevent further harm. Rehabilitation focuses on changing behavior through treatment, education, or counseling to reduce recidivism. Restitution requires offenders to compensate victims for losses, directly addressing harm done (NIJ, n.d.).

Is One Goal More Important?

No single goal universally outweighs others; policy context matters. For violent, dangerous offenders public safety and incapacitation may take precedence. For nonviolent or first-time offenders, rehabilitation and restitution can yield better long-term outcomes by reducing recidivism and restoring victims (NIJ, n.d.). My view prioritizes proportionality and public safety while favoring rehabilitation where evidence suggests it reduces future harm—balancing retributive fairness with pragmatic reduction of crime.

Double Jeopardy and Multiple Prosecutions

The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy—being tried twice for the same offense—framing a core liberty interest (Cornell LII, n.d.). However, the dual-sovereignty doctrine allows separate sovereigns (e.g., state and federal governments) to prosecute the same conduct under different laws without violating double jeopardy (Gamble v. United States, 2019). Thus, a defendant can face prosecution twice for the same act if distinct sovereigns bring charges, or in narrow procedural circumstances where retrial is permitted after a mistrial or successful appeal that does not implicate double jeopardy (Cornell LII, n.d.; Gamble, 2019).

White-Collar Crime

White-collar crime describes financially motivated, nonviolent offenses committed by business or government professionals, including fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, bribery, and money laundering (FBI, n.d.). These crimes often exploit position, trust, or complex financial systems and can inflict widespread economic harm. Famous examples include the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme and Enron-era accounting fraud (FBI, n.d.).

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)

Enacted in 2002 in response to major corporate accounting scandals (e.g., Enron, WorldCom), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Pub. L. No. 107-204) strengthened corporate governance, internal controls, auditor independence, and financial disclosure (Pub. L. No. 107-204, 2002). SOX created criminal penalties for certain fraudulent conduct, mandated CEO/CFO certifications of financial statements, and established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), enhancing investor protection and accountability (Pub. L. No. 107-204, 2002).

RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

RICO (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968) targets patterns of racketeering activity conducted through an “enterprise” and authorizes civil and criminal penalties, including treble damages in civil suits. Originally aimed at organized crime, RICO has been used broadly against diverse schemes involving ongoing criminal conduct—ranging from mafia enterprises to corporate fraud conspiracies—by permitting prosecutors to connect predicate acts into a single pattern of wrongdoing (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968).

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, criminalizes unauthorized access to protected computers, theft of data, computer-based fraud, and related activities. The CFAA has been used to prosecute hackers and insiders who exceed authorized access. Critics argue that broad or vague CFAA provisions can be applied overbroadly (e.g., controversies around prosecutorial approaches in cases such as Aaron Swartz), prompting calls for reform to better balance security with innovation and proportionality (18 U.S.C. § 1030; EFF, 2013).

Whistleblowers: Definition and Ethical Conflicts

A whistleblower is an individual who reports illegal, unsafe, or unethical practices within an organization to authorities or the public. Protections exist under statutes and agency programs, but whistleblowers often confront conflicting duties. Typical tensions include loyalty to employer versus duty to public interest, confidentiality obligations (including nondisclosure agreements) versus the moral imperative to expose harm, and personal risk (retaliation, job loss) versus legal protections that may be limited or slow to protect the reporter (DOL OSHA; DOJ). For example, Sherron Watkins, an Enron vice president, alerted management and later the public about accounting abuses—facing professional and moral dilemmas in deciding when and how to disclose (Watkins, 2002).

Examples and Practical Considerations

Enron demonstrates interactions among white-collar crime, whistleblowing, and legislative response: internal warnings by Watkins and eventual public exposure led to prosecutions and catalyzed Congress to pass SOX to enhance detection and accountability (Watkins, 2002; Pub. L. No. 107-204, 2002). The Aaron Swartz prosecution highlighted concerns about CFAA application and prosecutorial discretion (EFF, 2013). RICO’s flexibility enabled prosecutors to aggregate disparate criminal acts into an enterprise liability in major organized and corporate fraud cases (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968).

Conclusion

The criminal justice system’s goals—retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restitution—must be balanced according to the nature of offenses and societal interests. Double jeopardy protects against repeated prosecutions by the same sovereign, though dual-sovereignty permits separate sovereigns to prosecute the same conduct. White-collar crime, SOX, RICO, and the CFAA are distinct legal regimes addressing financial, organizational, and computer-based wrongdoing. Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing wrongdoing but face difficult ethical conflicts between loyalty, confidentiality, and the public good. Legal protections and principled decision-making are essential to support ethical reporting while safeguarding due process and proportionate enforcement (NIJ; FBI; Cornell LII; DOJ).

References

  • National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Purposes of criminal punishment. Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). White-collar crime. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/white-collar-crime
  • Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Double jeopardy. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy
  • Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019).
  • Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (2002).
  • Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 (1970).
  • Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (1986).
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2013). The Aaron Swartz case and CFAA reform. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/issues/cfaa
  • Watkins, S. (2002). Memo and statements regarding Enron accounting concerns. Coverage and interviews in Fortune and other outlets. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2002/06/21/sherron-watkins-on-enron/
  • U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (n.d.). Whistleblower Protection Program. Retrieved from https://www.whistleblowers.gov

Related Assignments