Leadership Issues in the Criminal Justice System

Leadership Issues in the Criminal Justice System

The concept of providing basic healthcare services to individuals in need has undergone an agonizing transition, from a luxury once only afforded by the affluent to a basic human right granted to citizens of every economic station, and the recently enacted Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to finalize this ethical evolution. Reflecting perhaps the bitter political enmity currently consuming the nation's once cherished democratic process, Republican legislatures in states throughout the union have bristled at the ACA's primary provisions, threatening all manner of procedural protestation as they attempt to delay and derail the bill's eventual implementation. One of the most intriguing aspects of the sprawling, thousand page law, however, has been the stipulation that individual states will be given a choice to either accept federal funding to expand their statewide Medicaid roster, or to forfeit all federal funding for that program in perpetuity. The role of government in monitoring and regulating the healthcare industry has been long debated, and the bitterly contested passage of President Obama's ACA, a law aimed at revising the country's health insurance system through the creating of a federal health insurance exchange to facilitate increased competition among insurers, has rekindled the debate over who holds the ultimate responsibility for regulating the care provided by hospitals, community clinics, and private practices.

One of the central leaders to emerge from within the American criminal justice system has been John G. Roberts, who has served as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court since 2005, after he was nominated in 2005 by then President George W. Bush. Despite a relatively conservative judicial record, and the fact that he was nominated by a Republican President to replace a fellow conservative, the deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Roberts has consistently demonstrated a nonpartisan, evenhanded approach in his opinions, upholding legislation that is ostensibly favored by Democrats despite intense political pressure. Chief Justice Roberts represents true leadership in the realm of jurisprudence because he has faithfully upheld his mandate to strictly interpret the Constitution and apply its fundamental precepts to current legislation. Experts on the concept of organizational leadership have identified especially impactful figures who possess the ability to effect genuine change as standard bearers, or leaders who work to "establish the ethical framework within an organization ... (by) demanding a commitment to live and defend the climate and culture that they want to permeate an organization" (Clark, 1997). One prime example of Robert's ability to act as a standard bearer through his independent leadership style occurred recently when the Supreme Court was tasked with adjudicating the bitter debate between the Obama administration, which had carefully crafted the ACA to stand as its legacy accomplishment, and Congressional Republicans who were vocally steadfast in their opposition. Despite widespread public opinion and prognostication by political pundits, Roberts elected to uphold the ACA's individual mandate, thus preserving the basic framework of the law that his own political party had vowed to obstruct. This example of the standard bearer leadership style is remarkable, simply because Roberts could have just as easily struck the ACA down entirely in accordance with his personally conservative philosophy without committing any conflicts of interest. By objectively examining the legislation on its merits, and concluding that the ACA's basic provisions were in accordance with the Constitution, Chief Justice Roberts exemplified the true meaning of leadership within the criminal justice system.