To study law is a privilege and a gift that assists humans in diminishing the ignorance surrounding the legal system. Though it is a privilege and a gift, one individual in particular highlights the faults, he feels, are embedded within the system. This individual is a professor of criminology at the Faculty of Law at the University of Oslo (Oslo, 2008) named Nils Christie. His insight regarding the issues with the legal system will be discussed in depth throughout this paper, using his article entitled Conflicts as Property (Christie, 1977). Through reading this article, one could extrapolate, that the legal system essentially steals the conflicts from the people and uses them as property for the state. Christie’s argument holds a great amount …show more content…
As stated by A. Hayashi of Harvard University, “an abundance of emotion (anger, for example) can lead to faulty decisions.” (Hayashi, 2001). In the context of law, the victim may have a severe emotional disturbance caused by the offender, which in turn, will cause the victim to demand a harsher penalty than necessary. To exacerbate this faulty concept, one must take into account ignorance to the law. When a legal representative or lawyer is hired to take on a case, there is a relief that this individual has devoted their lives to the field of law. This individual is familiar with the system and he/she will locate legally relevant material to add strength to the case. When these legal professionals are removed from the equation, it is up to the victim/offender to determine the legally relevant material and/or outcome of the case. With that in thought, sentencing risks being determined based off of individual discretion rather than the law. Another thought associated with the absence of lawyers, is scenarios where the victim/offender is unable represent themselves fairly due to mental state/condition, physical state/condition, religious barriers, cultural barriers, and/or language barriers. This can pose a significant problem in accordance with Section 15 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . With all these factors surrounding a victim versus offender type setting, it would be in the legal system’s benefit to keep lawyers present in legal
In today’s Canadian society, it is certain that criminal law is to serve and protect and its fundamental purpose is to prevent crime and punish offenders. However, there have been cases where criminal law has punished the offender who turned out to be innocent. A conviction is needed to show that the system is not in disrepute and to keep order and people safe in society. If a criminal cannot be caught then people will look down upon the system in disgrace. In many cases, officers will arrest an individual who fits a certain description that they know will lead to an arrest and conviction. In the case of Guy Paul Morin it shows how the system failed in aiding the innocent who abide to the law. The law is established to protect those who are innocent from being targeted because of the law.
Canada’s criminal justice system largely focuses on rehabilitation, but Bourque’s harsh sentence is similar to the sentencing practices of the United States (Gagnon 2015). This is troubling as Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system appears to be working. Canada has a low rate of recidivism for offenders who have been convicted of murder (Gagnon 2015). Research shows that Canada’s rehabilitation focused criminal justice system has also worked with crimes that are not as severe as murder. Between 2010/2011 and 2013/2014, there was a 12% decrease in completed adult criminal court cases. Most cases in adult criminal court involve non-violent offenses (Maxwell 2013/2014). Similarly, in 2013, the police-reported crime rate was at it lowest since 1969 (Statistics Canada). The homicide rate is also declining, as in 2013, it represented less than 1% of all violent crime (Statistics Canada). Notably, probation was the most common sentence given in adult court cases and custody sentences were less than six months (Maxwell, 2013/2014). These types of sentences showcase the rehabilitation focused thinking of the Canadian criminal justice system and reinforce the impact and possible repercussions of Justin Bourque’s
Bender, L David, and Bruno Leone. Criminal Justice: opposing viewpoints. St. Paul, Minnesota: Greenhaven Press, 1981. Print.
While conflict can be difficult to solve and appear detrimental to the progress of society, their presence plays a foundational role within the structure of communities. Society would not be complete without some sort of internal struggle, whether inhabitants acknowledge it or not. Nils Christie, the author of an article “Conflicts as Property” has a firm belief that conflict’s purpose within society is beneficial, contesting the standpoints of modern law. Throughout this critical analysis, Christie’s main topics will be examined and furthered reinforced by comparing them to the beliefs of members of society, namely myself, regarding to modern law. To investigate the premise of Christie’s viewpoints, the article’s main ideas will be discussed,
Schmalleger, F. (2009). The Conflict Perspective. In F. Schmalleger, Criminology: An Intergrative Introduction (p. 347). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
He explains that when a conflict arises, we are less capable to take on the situation and are more likely to hand it off to authorities. He then comes to the conclusion of how they are overlooked, in terms of importance, and that individuals own their conflicts as one would own property. Furthermore, he justifies that these properties are stolen by law, therefore, no longer owned by individuals. Christie urges the need to eliminate ‘professionals’ from the sphere of conflict resolution in order to prevent the theft of conflicts. He explains his perspective of “conflict as property” as not relating to material compensation but rather to the ownership of conflict itself. He then recognizes the effects of victim losing the “property” originally, and puts forth a fix for this process. He introduces a way to remodel the justice system for dealing with conflicts in which the court is victim
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 packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
The purpose of this report is to provide the courts and judges in the matter of Martin A. case an overview and critical analysis of his case through the evaluation process of Youth Court Action Planning Plan (YCAPP). Before discussing Martin A., it is a good idea to understand the roles and functions of the YCAPP. Over the course of history, the Canadian legal system has always struggled with successfully dealing with youth offenders until the introduction of youth criminal justice act in 2003. Youth criminal justice act has reduced the number of cases, charges, and convictions against the youth hence resulting in a much more efficient way to deal with youth crime across the country (Department of justice, 2017). A vital component
In every society around the world, the law affects everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities. Within the legal system, there is the Canadian criminal justice system, which is meant to guarantee the safety of citizens within the country and is used to sustain social control and deliver justice for a society.
The company selected for this essay’s discussion is Christie’s – international auction house for arts and luxury goods. Established in 1766, Christie’s has remained at the top of the public’s mind as one of the best auction houses. Christie’s has a foothold in multiple countries, situated in major capital cities such as London, New York, Paris, Geneva, Milan, Amsterdam, Dubai, Zürich, Hong Kong, and Shanghai.
...rounding individual offender needs and courtroom management and organizational concerns. Although courtroom actor reliance on different focal concerns is theorized to be uniform across jurisdictions, the relative emphasis and subjective interpretation of these considerations is likely to vary across court communities (Ulmer and Johnson, 2004). This is because "the meaning, relative emphasis and priority, and situational interpretations of them is embedded in local court community culture, organizational contexts, and politics" that vary across courts (Kramer and Ulmer, 2002: 903). From this perspective, judicial departures can be understood as the result of the complex interplay between formally rational guideline recommendations and substantively rational sentencing concerns, based on varying interpretations of different focal concerns across courtroom communities.