The concepts of power and authority are often used interchangeably, but such an approach does not allow properly understanding their nature. Therefore, it is critical to distinguish between these phenomena, which promote the awareness of the process of power acquisition in justice organizations. As noted by Stojkovic et al. (2015), there are various definitions of power given by scholars and philosophers, but it can be described as the ability of a person or an organization to impact the behaviors and actions of others. Regarding criminal justice organizations, it should be emphasized that power is practiced in relatively stable and predictable environments compared to market uncertainties. In turn, authority refers to the legitimization of power with time, which can be expressed in the form of commands and orders. In society, the exercise of authority is desired to enforce others in one way or another.
Power and authority can also be characterized in terms of their hierarchy and sources. While expertise and knowledge compose the basis of power, authority employs position and office. Power implies the exercise of personal traits, but a legitimate right provided to officials is the foundation of authority. In addition, authority is expected to follow a hierarchy, and power does not imply any structure. For example, charismatic authority vests in the personal attributes of a veteran police officer, who motivates his or her colleagues due to attractive qualities. Another example is a coercive type of power that is inherent in many traditional prisons. It implies that a person applies punishment or threats to force an inmate to comply with the orders. In this case, the example demonstrates a widespread belief that such power is the key mechanism of compliance in correctional facilities.
Speaking about the foundation of criminal justice organizations, one should note that both power and authority are significant. The study by Stojkovic (1987) found that correctional officers do not rely strongly on reward power to ensure the reliance of inmates to the orders (as cited in Stojkovic et al., 2015). At the same time, authority practice is critical in correctional organizations to make decisions, share them with subordinates, and confirm that the organization performs appropriately as a whole. While authority is a more formal concept, power is focused on working with the daily behaviors of people. For instance, the interaction of the police and car drivers can be mentioned to explain the importance of both concepts. When a driver notices that the car behind him or her turns on red and blue lights, it means that the driver should pull to the side. In this situation, the driver understands that the police officer is likely to exercise his or her legitimate authority. However, when the police officer issues a speeding ticket, it is the expression of power.
In many cases, criminal justice officials, who are in positions of power, also possess some authority. The police officer has to comply with the authority of persons, who stay higher in the hierarchy, but they have the power to make decisions regarding the implementation of the commands. If a chief police officer sets a task to find a thief, it is the responsibility of the subordinate officers to choose relevant strategies to accomplish this task. At the same time, they have the authority to arrest a person. Thus, power and authority are the two concepts that compose the foundation of the criminal justice system; they cannot be used interchangeably, but should be considered in combination.
Reference
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2015). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management (6th ed.). Nelson Education.