Respond to this discussion

Discussion 1: The major criminal justice policy change I will examine is the Obergefell v Hodges ruling of 2015. Within it were considerations of due process and equal protection under the law provided in the Fourteenth Amendment. (Obergefell v Hodges syllabus, 2015)

Horwitz (2014) details the Justice Departments changes in policy recognizing legal same-sex marriages, “The Justice Department will instruct all of its employees across the country, for the first time, to give lawful same-sex marriages sweeping equal protection under the law in every program it administers, from courthouse proceedings to prison visits to the compensation of surviving spouses of public safety officers.”

According to Perone, Many benefits became legally available to same sex couples conferred by the state after the ruling. Benefits such as insurance coverage, inheritance rights, medical decision-making authority, tax exemptions, adoption rights, and infertility treatments to name a few. (Perone 2015)

One effect on criminal justice operations was that the states could no longer refuse to recognize marriages legally performed in another state based on laws banning such marriages in their own state. Another effect on criminal justice operations was that same-sex couples could not be compelled to testify against their spouse in court of law. Also, a same-sex couple one of whom is incarcerated could now be furloughed to deal with a crisis in their married partner’s life. (Horwitz 2014)

Formerly held marriage policies were based on that same sex marriages would somehow demean heterosexual marriages, or would not serve the basis of procreation, or could cause religious organizations to lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed the ruling. (Gwlr.org 2015)

Has the public policy changed over time? Yes, absolutely it has. It was once the law of the land to only allow marriage by a religious definition of one man and one woman. Civil unions were acceptable in many states but could not be called marriage and did not confer the same rights and privileges as marriage. Most states had already legalized same sex marriages in their respective state before the Supreme Court decision in 2015.

Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. This is an example of one criminal justice policy that changed over the years.

I do believe the arguments were indeed addressed when the Obergefell v Hodges ruling became public policy. One legitimate objection was religious liberties to decline participation in a same sex marriage. This was addressed in the language of the majority opinion of the SCOTUS. (Obergefell v Hodges 2015)

Discussion 2: The major criminal justice policy that I chose to examine is the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001. This policy was rapidly established as the result of the terroristic attacks of September 11 to protect our nations security by allowing federal agencies to investigate any possible terroristic threats toward the Unites States. “Congress was trying to pass laws that would ensure that America was safe from future attacks…” (Marion & Oliver, 2012)

The U.S. Patriot Act has been seen by many groups as a “threat to civil liberties.” (Simone, 2009 p. 1) It is argued that the policy violates out right to privacy, free speech and human dignity. Despite the various campaigns against this policy the Departments of Justice has maintained that the Act is necessary to obtain intelligence and capture terrorist. Citizens have come to accept that state surveillance is necessary for this war on terror. “Some legal perspectives view the Patriot Act as a minor extension or clarification of existing surveillance law.” (Simone, 2009 p. 3)

This policy has not seen many changes since it was established. “Several lawmakers now believe that the act failed to maintain a proper balance between protecting the American people from terrorism and preserving their freedom.” As a result, the Patriot Act is not under review and certain provisions in this act are open for questioning. “With enough awareness and support at the grass roots level, the legislators would be forced to do the right thing for the nation by repelling the controversial articles of the Patriot Act.” (Sunya, 2009. p.4)

This U. S. Patriot Act “was the result of some very rapid hearings, proposals, and bills being put forth on homeland security.” (Marion & Oliver, 2012) The goal of the federal government was to protect our nations by any means necessary before any other attempt of terrorism was attempted. If congress would have carefully evaluated the Patriot Act I do not think that there would be any consideration of review or questioning if this policy. I believe they would consider the civil liberties of the citizens of this nation and fix any controversial articles with in the Patriot Act.

Guided Response: Review your peers’ posts, and substantively respond in a meaningful way to at least two of your peers. Respond to at least one Instructor Response in the discussion. Your posts must analyze the policy using a different model as discussed by Marion and Oliver (2012). Using a different model, do you come to different conclusions? Do you come to different priorities? Do the goals of the policy change?