706 Final Essays Flashcards
(4 cards)
The FBI Lab: How did the nature of the FBI Lab’s work help shield it from external scrutiny?
How can technically challenged superiors exercise tighter control over units with highly technical missions?
How can outside investigators or experts penetrate the inner workings of highly specialized units in law enforcement agencies or other public organizations?
Do you believe it can be a reasonable strategy for highly technical units to keep problems hidden?
What are the risks and rewards of this strategy?
O’Hara’s definition of institutionalization provides the answer to how the FBI’s lab work was shielded; the FBI was insulated from any type of change and their internal processes were never questioned by management, and when frontline lab employees did question, they were punished
Management can maintain control by involving outside agencies to audit their work if permitted, and if not, have another department from within the agency conduct audits.
Outside agencies seem to be met with resistance when attempting to review the inner workings of law enforcement agencies, but if the law enforcement were to focus on who their true customer was, perhaps there would be less pushback.
I do not believe that it is reasonable to keep problems under the radar for they would only perpetuate greater problems.
The Judges of Luzerne County: Describe the ways the judges exert control over the political, economic and social environment surrounding their court and the county government?
What was the impact of their control on the functioning of the governmental institutions serving Luzerne County.
In analyzing this case, identify critical junctures and key individuals where particular actions may have nipped the judges’ corrupt scheme in the bud.
The judges benefited from a sort of political peerage, for Conahan, at least, and both were also head of the administrative courts. Their political sway and judicial power enabled them to reign over the community. By heading administrative and juvenile courts, alike, they were able essentially to rule in their own favor if challenged.
Their partnership with Hazleton led to financial enrichment for all parties and undue incarceration for countless juvenile “offenders”.
Restricting judicial investments in facilities such as PACC could only happen through transparency mandated by the county for all sitting judges.
Predictably Irrational I: Ariely addresses the “High Price of Ownership: Why We Overvalue What We Have.” In this week’s cases, as well as in others dealt with in this course, organizations seem to have a very hard time getting rid of their suspect employees, as well as practices that are producing more problems than benefits.
Do we have “overvaluing” in commitments to “CRASH“ type policing, or to long-term employees with simmering behavioral issues, or to attitudes and beliefs that celebrate “how perfect we are” despite contrary evidence?
Agencies still overvalue commitments to monikers such as CRASH because they convey an air of research and commitment, by the law enforcement agency to cure a wrong, but seem more committed to defending the name than the problem. As we saw with Zuckerberg’s attempt to improve Newark’s schools, it took most of the investment to clean house of the underperforming employees.
Predictably Irrational II: Another way of characterizing Chapter 9 in Ariely is “What You Think is What You Get.”
How do the ideas and examples Ariely gives help explain why many organizations are intent on maintaining their positive image no matter what it takes—even if that means defending inept lab techs, state troopers who profile by race and SWAT team members who gun down mothers holding infants?
Ariely’s examples show that we often spend more time in creating options, or doors, to choose from so that we have a way out. This type of behavior may cause us to miss out, such as with the camera, the friend lost out on taking pictures while debating the best type of camera to purchase. With regard to the FBI, their positive image, if tainted, would not only also cause irreparable harm to their cherished reputation but could cause other cases to be further researched and decisions overturned.
