The criminal justice system is an existing tool for society to convict those practicing anti-social behaviour. The English legal system is under a lot of dispute given that the government can interfere with individual freedom declaring individuals to prison. Thus, the criminal justice system needs to balance competing interests from punishing the guilty to protecting the innocent. However, not every system can be upmost perfect; there have been miscarriages of justice, unlawful arrests and so on. There are remedies however, for those who abuse the system. In this essay I will critically consider the conditions for a lawful arrest.
There is however, no concrete definition of arrest. It was deprived in Christie v Leachinsky (1947) that an arrest is ‘the beginning of imprisonment’, thereby suspects to a degree are physically restrained as they cannot be free to go wherever they like. So, during a criminal investigation, an arrest occurs whereby the police has the legal and factual grounds to deprive someone’s liberty. This happens to question suspects for possible involvement in a criminal offence or if they hold any knowledge. In Spicer v Halt (1977), Lord Dilhorne stated, ‘Whether or not a person has been arrested depends not upon the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his liberty to go where he pleases’. This suggests, a person held against their will is arrested and in concluding whether the arrest is lawful or not has to satisfy the conditions of this. This leads to a lawful arrest is that of which is under a warrant, common law arrest and arrest under legislation. Furthermore, this shows the right to liberty which is entrenched by the Human Rights Act 1998 is affected by police powers of arrest.
Po...
... middle of paper ...
...ect has given the correct name, in order to obtain suspect’s address, to protect vulnerable individuals and so on.
Moreover, an arresting officer has to consider whether an arrest is essential and consider other alternatives opposed to arrest. In the likes of summons by post or issuing a penalty notice. However, if a police officer cannot justify why the arrest is crucial the arrest and any following detentions is reasoned unlawful. Due to revisions of Code G makes it clear the power of arrest impacts the right to liberty protected under Article 5 of the ECHR. Therefore, it is crucial an arresting officer are aware that potential unlawful arrests could lead to claims for false imprisonment. Thus, why there are remedies for unlawful arrests provided if this has occurred.
Works Cited
https://www.gov.uk/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-codes-of-practice
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include:
As some criminologists have debated, the methods and approaches to crime control have failed miserably. They are of the opinion that the criminal justice system fails in achieving its aims in rehabilitating criminal offenders. For example, a report made in the U.K claimed that 58 per cent of the prisoners released in 1997 were convicted of another crime (SEU, 2000). Some argue that it seems for the criminal justice system there is only one answer to crime control, a prison sentence. Nevertheless, some question how accurate this method is for some crimes in society. That is to say, that for certain crimes, taking the consumption of marijuana as an example, a prison sentence is not the solution, rehabilitating individuals should be the main priority and in certain cases if not the only
The individuals within our society have allowed the people to assess and measure the level of focus and implementation of our justice system to remedy the modern day crime which conflicts with the very existence of our social order. Enlightening us to the devices that will further, establish the order of our society, reside in our ability to observe the Individual’s rights for public order. The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence-based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packers believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed, defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness.
From the moment an innocent individual enters the criminal justice system they are pressured by law enforcement whose main objective is to obtain a conviction. Some police interrogation tactics have been characterized as explicit violations of the suspect’s right to due process (Campbell and Denov 2004). However, this is just the beginning. Additional forms of suffering under police custody include assaults,
...lacks, and men. Furthermore, the competing paradigms influence public policy. Those that maintain acts as voluntary are more inclined to punish the individual or group, however those that are seen to act under determined forces, judge treatment to be more suitable. Even though these theories contrast, they still contain similarities which are shared in the new penology. Aspects are taken from all to create a new perspective on crime that centres on the management of offenders.
One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s rights in due process. The controversial issue from the Fourth Amendment, which some may regard as implied, but others may regard having a broader meaning, comes from the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360). The Exclusionary rule is considered just because it protects the people’s constitutional rights from being violated and provides a check on the power of law enforcement and state courts.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Crime, by definition, is an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Every crime, and every criminal has a story. The story of how the Miranda Rights came to be is one of the most well known crimes in history. The Miranda Rights have changed the world of crime and justice to the point of no return, and has affected the lives of everyone involved in crime, has been arrested, has had their rights read, or who has read said rights. It also affects the lives of the police, and the families of the arrested.
There are a few elements that need to be introduced before an arrest is taken place. These few elements are Seizures and detention, Intention to arrest, Arrest Authority and lastly understanding for the individual that they are being arrested. To discuss these elements it first starts with seizure and detention. Seizure and detention have a two-lane road which is actual, meaning that a person is taken into custody without using the use of force but very few touching is sometimes involved or by firearm, the other way is constructive which means when an individual's corporates with the officer peacefully. It is known that if neither of these exists the arrest isn't valid (Del Carmen). Another element of arrest is the intention to arrest. The intention to arrest clear means that the law enforcement officer has the intention to arrest individuals by words of mouth or with action taking place. Without the intentions to arrest on the scene it would also be considered invalid (Wadia Whalen). Also with the intention to arrest once words and action are taken place, the officer has to take the person down to the police station or before a judicial officer. The intention to arrest is quite hard to prove because it's whatsit in the officer mind. The other element listed above that is
The Law today is a summary of various principles from around the world from the past and the present. Early practises of law were the foundation of the law that we know and abide by today. These practises were referred to as the Classical school. Over time however, different criminologist have altered and greatly improved the early, incomplete ideas and made them more complete and practical to more modern times. This newer version is referred to as the Positivist school. This rapid change from the classical to the positivist perspective was due to the change and growth of civilization. Even though one perspective came from another, they are still different in many ways and it is evident when relating them to section 462.37, Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime, and section 810, Sureties to keep the Peace. The Classical School of criminology’s time of dominance was between 1700 and 1800. Its conception of deviance was that deviance was a violation of the social contract. Classical theorists believed that all individuals were rational actors and they were able to act upon their own free will. A person chose to commit crimes because of greed and because they were evil. The primary instrument that could be used in regards to the classical school to control crime was to create “criminal sanctions that instil fear of punishment in those contemplating criminal acts” (Gabor 154). Classical school theorists believed the best defence was a good offence and therefore they wanted to instil so much fear into people about what would happen to them if they were to commit a crime that even those who were only thinking of committing a crime were impacted greatly. The classical school individuals operated entirely on free will and it was their ...
The origin of the word prison comes from the Latin word to seize. It is fair to say that the traditionally use of prison correspond well with the origin of the word; as traditionally prison was a place for holding people whilst they were awaiting trail. Now, centuries on and prisons today is used as a very popular, and severe form of punishment offered to those that have been convicted. With the exception however, of the death penalty and corporal punishment that still takes place in some countries. Being that Prison is a very popular form of punishment used in today's society to tackle crime and punish offenders, this essay will then be examining whether prison works, by drawing on relevant sociological factors. Furthermore, it will be looking at whether punishment could be re-imagined, and if so, what would it entail?
The case of AZ v Mauro, a necessary precursor to the case analysis is defining the application of Miranda Rights (Miranda v. Arizona) and the difference between an unlawful or lawful interrogation within the Miranda Rights. The most commonly misinterpreted actions that prompt the need for Miranda, which is only necessary if a formal custody and an interrogation will coincide. When Mirandized or given a Miranda warning informing an individual of their rights against self-incrimination, protected under the Fifth Amendment. These rights advise that the individual being arrested and taken into custody may choose to not answer any incriminating questions (which excludes standard identity or booking questions) without an attorney present. Otherwise
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfarism and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years.
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular