CRIME AND CRIMINAL PROCESS COURT REPORT
Kathryn Murray
Within the criminal justice system, there’s been longstanding emphasis on judicial dispassion, in which the judge adopts a detached, unemotional demeanor to support their positional authority. As such, the courts have adopted a widespread belief that this behavior is the best means of demonstrating impartiality. Although judicial dispassion remains the dominant form of judgecraft, many question the effectiveness of this disengaged form of delivering justice. New ideas about the importance of judicial emotional management, especially in the Lower Courts, which include more active, collaborative attitudes, emphasizing direct communication, increased attention to the personal circumstances of defendants in court, and the need to acknowledge the human interests at stake, are redefining society’s ideas of what constitutes “good
…show more content…
Zhang, in which Justice Tupman displayed increasingly annoyance with the defense’s line of questioning, ordering the attorney to “get on with it,” and “just get to the point already.” When he continued questioning in a similar manner, the Justice stopped the proceedings, excused the jury and reprimanded the attorney for fifteen minutes. Similar impatience was displayed at the Supreme Court level in R v. McNarma. Within a period of twenty-five minutes, Justice Bellow interjected nineteen times to the defense’s line of questioning, stating, “this is of marginal importance,” “I reject this. It cannot possibly be relevant,” and “you are testing my patience.” During that same period, he excused the jury twice in order to reprimand the defense attorney for his “inappropriate line of questioning.” Although the Justices in these cases are not directly addressing the defendant, this condescending behavior, cannot be lost on them, and has the effect of undermining, rather than enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
2. Did you easily find the National Criminal Justice Reference Service when you searched for NCJRS on the search tools?
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Jurors opinions can be influenced by an emotional testimony. Deborah W. Denno’s article Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and the Criminal Justice System is the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law’s publication of a panel at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. The panel had three goals: “examine the interrelationship between neuroscience and substantive criminal law; to incorporate criminal procedure more directly into the examination in a way that past investigations have not done; and to scrutinize cognitive bias in decision-making,” (Denno
Byrd, S. (2005). On getting the reasonable person out of the courtroom. Journal of Criminal Law. 571-571. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/osjcl2&div=41&id=&page=
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
My first exposure to the criminal justice system was while in high school when I was fortunate to be chosen for an internship with a District Judge John Vance in Dallas, Texas. Judge Vance made certain I had a rich and varied experience. He had me to sit in on several high profile cases in his court and to participate in preparing cases for trial with a prosecutor and defense attorney. In addition, he encouraged me to visit other courtrooms and courthouses to observe the proceedings. This along with him coordinating visits at local jails and law enforcement agencies gave me a broad and well-rounded perspective of the criminal justice system. I recall fondly, sitting in on closing arguments at the federal courthouse; the prosecutors practiced
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
Criminal Law declares what conduct is illegal and proscribes a penalty. Although, we rely on our court system to administer justice, sometimes the innocent are convicted (Risinger). Most people would not be able to imagine a person who is convicted of a crime as innocent, sometimes that is the case. Imagine what a variance that is: an innocent criminal. In an article by Radley Balko he asks the question, “How many more are innocent?” In his article, he questions America’s 250th DNA exoneration and states that it raises questions about how often we send the wrong person to prison. The other issue that follows is the means of appealing the court’s decision and who they can turn to for help.
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2011). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
There are certain moments in American life that have certain dignity" (38). The judicial system is a very complex system and deserves the respect and dignity that is required. It needs to be taken seriously. The public has no right to make it into a game. This is a serious process of bringing criminals to justice.
...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.