ASSIGNMENT

Homeland Security and Criminal Justice

What I'm gonna talk to you today about is public policy, Homeland Security, the criminal justice context. We're going to review the MAY, can and should model again. May. Does the government have the moral, constitutional, ethical obligation to address the problem? If not, who should be addressing that state or local government? If it's the federal government, or should it be some other group in Homeland Security is probably not going to be some other group. Can, whichever sphere of responsibility, federal, state, or local, has the obligation. Do they have the resources necessary to tackle the issue? This is where that really public policy implementation comes into play. Define the problem, list, the alternatives, determines some sort of evaluation criteria, evaluate the alternatives, and then implement one of the chosen alternatives. And that really brings it to the should step. Should. If an entity does have the moral constitutional authority to tackle that problem, which is May, and also had the resources available to tackle the problem, which is CAN. What's the best way in terms of the political and strategic constraints to put that policy into place, how is the agenda best addressed? Is now the right time to move forward on that particular agenda. How should the message be crafted? Well, there's just bring this down to public safety, Homeland Security Criminal Justice. On 9 11, 2001. I was an administrative law hearing. We were looking at shutting down a bar with our alcoholic beverage control board and we were chatting with a lawyer. I had no idea what was going to go on that morning. And the information I received was 30 minutes to an hour late. But at 846, Flight 11 flew into the North Tower in New York City. At 903, flight 170 fly H5, flew into the South Tower. 937, Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon, and then it 1003 Flight 93 crashed and shakes will PA I went to work that night. Naive to what Homeland Security was. Not really having any reference prior to that, what Homeland Security term would even mean. But when I went to work that night, I knew that the face of even local criminal justice work had changed forever. I had no idea that a report this big would be produced. Just ONE, 9 11 and homeland security, the 9 11 Commission report. Let's bring it down to really a public safety context and what that might entail when you're looking at criminal justice and homeland security and public policy issues that you may look at. And these are federal, state, and local, really too numerous to name. Border security, federal versus military law enforcement, drones. We'll talk about that in a minute. Detention. Discrimination, profiling, body scanners, torture, the US Patriot Act, privacy, biometrics, and all the other scientific advances. Just really look at Homeland Security on the macro level. And this is more or less the federal government level. But we have some questions to ask. February 13 and article entitled The second quadrennial Homeland Security Review, setting priorities for the next four years was crafted by five national security experts and they outline five potential directions that the Department of Homeland Security should address. One, recap, analyzing the Coast Guard, strengthening intelligence, counter-terrorism, and information sharing. Thinking about aviation security or rethinking about aviation security. Refocusing fema on catastrophic events, and driving institutional reform to create a centralized management authority dealing with Homeland Security. So the question could be, how did these five different areas impact criminal justice? Or they just federal areas that they impact? Or is there a trickle-down effect to the state and local governments? What are the implications and the policy implement, implement implementation, ideas and issues that may come up with homeland security in those five priorities. Again, what would state and local government do about that? Me? How does the law enforcement criminal justice branch? And does it have actually the moral and constitutional ethical obligation to address the issue of Homeland Security. In which branch? Which of the five issues addressed? At what level? What's the trickle-down policy issues associated with maybe they're redirecting a Department of Homeland Security, if these analysts are correct. And again, what level can whichever sphere they land in? As far as responsibility goes and obligation goes? Do they have the resources to tackle it? In other words, if there's a trickle-down effect from the federal to the state to the local government dealing with these issues that I just named. Do they actually have the capacity, the resources to tackle it? And then where can we find best practices and model policy in the context of the five issues that we have. How do we develop public policy dealing with them? How do we define the problem? How do we list the alternatives? How do we find an evaluative criteria? And then how do we evaluate those different ideas to choose one alternative which brings us to should. Should. If an entity has the moral, legal, constitutional authority to tackle the problem which is May. And they also had the resources to take care of the situation or tackle the problem, solve the problem. Can. What's the best way in terms of political and strategic environment constraints to look at those five issues that we just talked about. Well, let's just look at something. I mention drones just a minute ago. And we certainly have seen 29 states actively have legislation dealing with state level and local level. Drone usage is a big topic as a public policy criminal justice topic. So I know that there's already organizations working on public policy or crafting public policy, dealing with drone usage from the state government, local government in for criminal justice professionals. Have you already been working on it? Has your organization at the federal, state, or local level been working on public policy dealing with drone usage? Or are we behind that curve? Because we know other ones are ahead of that curve. Let me just mentioned the organization, the ACLU. The ACLU has already drafted a proposed public policy dealing with drone usage. And we'll just go over it so we can see what they came up with. So compare it to what you may come up with. Uses limits. The ACLU says that drone should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant in an emergency or when they're specific and articulate well grounds to believe that the drone will be are used to collect evidence related to a specific criminal act, just not in general. Data retention. Images should be retained only when there's reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime. Policy. Usage policy on domestic drones should only be decided by the public's representatives, not by police departments. And the policy should be clear, written in open to the public. Abuse prevention accountability. The use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse and weapons. The ACLU says that drone should not have less than lethal, less lethal or lethal weapons on board dealing with the drones. As you can see. Well, you've already come up with a model policy. They're already using it potentially with these 29 states and developing policy. What I posit to you is, where do you stand? Where do you ethically stand? Where does criminal justice stand with respect to drums or any of the other issues that I mentioned. And how are you going to develop policy? How is your organization going to develop policy that represents your sphere of influence and your constitutional authority to act. Have a good day.