Evaluation of criminal law: Dishonesty offences

The groundwork of how the criminal justice system is laid today, despite some major tweaks and changes along the way, still has remnants of the classical school of criminology. With people having free will, an attraction to crime, the ability to possibly lower crime through fear of reprimand or punishment, and knowing that crime must be severe, certain, and swift, the components of the classical school of criminology are very helpful and powerful (Siegel, 2011, p. 9, para. 1). Specific deterrence is a great tool to use to show the criminal just how severe a punishment can be (Siegel, 2011, p. 100, para. 1).

First time nonviolent offenders are usually considered for probation. The length and terms of probation are given at sentencing. The changes in criminal justice are beneficial and detrimental at the same time. Changes are beneficial, because technology advances will aide in catching and identifying criminals, and also act as a deterrent against crime. It is detrimental because just as new technology and advances are made available to law enforcement it is also being sought out by criminals.

This paper discusses models, crime control and due process, and how each affects the criminal procedure; as well be an inclusion of the review and assessment of several amendments and how each applies to both models. Contrast between crime control and due process models The crime control model incorporates upholding principles that demonstrate the traditional values of the criminal justice system. Supporters of this model believe criminal justice should center on maintaining victims’ rights instead of protecting the rights of defendants. The suppression of crime, an imperative task of criminal justice, is a vital provision for a liberated society. According to this model establishing the true culpability of the accused or ascertaining the truth is an essential point of the criminal justice process.

Intro Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases. Theoretical Functions Throughout the history of law enforcement within the United States, theories has been explored and implemented as polices in addressing deviant behaviors produced by humans.

Introduction The high level of activity in the criminal justice system and the resultant productivity arise from a range of interconnected beliefs that the implementation of criminal sanctions to offenders is an essential and useful means of holding up the existing moral and political order. That is to say, the criminal sanction can be deemed to be a reinforcer of the moral beliefs and social order. This paper, however, will look at both sides of the application of criminal sanction. ‘Used providently and humanely it is a guarantor of human freedom; used indiscriminately and coercively, it is a threatener.’ (Packer, 1968:366) Professor Packer uses his knowledge and understanding of the nature of criminal sanction largely to show how much it actually does threaten freedom; hence the arguments will revolve around this view. The essay aims to explain Packer’s quote and illustrate instances of criminal sanction as a ‘prime guarantor’ or ‘prime threatener’ of human freedom.

The central purpose of the criminal justice system is to deliver an efficient, effective and fair jus-tice process for the country. With their appeal to an efficiently and an instrumental logic (protecting the innocent and punish-ing the guilty) these statements offer a picture of criminal justice as being in the business of crime control. The challenge is one of effeteness. “We are blessed in the united kingdom by a judiciary whose integrity, dependence, professional-ism and skill that is not in question. But we take such a condition for granted at our peril.

Biological, Social ecological and psychological model theories are key to helping researchers gain deeper comprehension of criminal behaviour and ways to avert them before they become a menace to society. All these theories put forward a multitude of factors on the outlooks on crime. All these theories have valid relevancy to continuous research on criminal behaviour.

It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments. It is often argued that by promoting high standards of care, strict liability protects the liberty of the public from dangerous practices.

Another interpretation he had was that the law generally and particularly the criminal law, is an instrument of social power that was meant to maintain a condition of the greatest freedom possible for each individual. Retributive may be thought of as an implication of the arguments about the distribution of punishment. Justice is not getting even for crimes and offenses. It concerns the running of a society as a whole in a day-today civil matters; as well as the more dramatic criminal concerns. When it comes to justice distribution of privileges and power are equally important.

Enhancing legitimacy also advances the goals of policing, which includes crime control effectiveness (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). As Kochel and colleagues (2013) point out understanding how voluntary cooperation and compliance can be promoted is essential to effective policing in a democratic environment (pp. 896). Previous research has also suggested that in societies such as the United States of America, where laws and cultural norms protect liberty and privacy, legal authorities rely on the public’s cooperation and acquiescence (Tyler et al,