Interpretations of the law allow a lot of leeway in order to shape legislation to the needs of the plaintiff or victim. General crime legislation serves the purpose of protecting the public, yet only certain motivations of crimes enable the judiciary to assign additional charges to a defendant guilty of a hate crime. The protected rights of citizens are believed to guarantee peace and tranquility. The most recent additions to everyday crime legislation have challenged this peace and created chaos between the supporters and opposers of these changes. Despite the United States developing hate crime legislation that suffices to maintain justice within the judiciary system, numerous legislative experts strongly believe these most recent changes create unnecessary bias.
Targeted killings brought tensions between addressing terrorism as a crime or as a war. In law enforcement, individuals would be punished once they guilt is proven. The individual will face trial in a court of law and will enjoy the protections. Thus, there should be ways to solve this problem or at least give it a justification on why these people are being targeted or killed. There is another question, which ways to use for solving this problem, the domestic law or the international law?
Obviously, International criminal law covers different mechanisms for the suppression of transnational crimes, but this system shows also weaknesses in some cases where human rights factor appears more sensitive. States have the obligation to fight transnational crimes within the framework of cooperation at the same time it is unacceptable matter that human rights infringements while extraditing the suspects. According to these crucial points, human rights factor takes a great deal of importance now more than ever. The American legal realists have commonly stated that defining the correct balance with regard to common interests, recognition of clear mechanisms and standards indicates a high value in t... ... middle of paper ... ...t difficult situations is the non-extradition of nationals especially of those civil law tradition seem more sensitive in this issue. Some commentators suggest that the person’s native land has the authority to punish its citizen prosecuted for any crime despite where this may occur.
It is no secret that the American legal system is distinct from other developed Western nations in its practices and laws. This variation, termed “adversarial legalism” by Professor Robert Kagan in his book, Adversarial Legalism, has two salient features: formal legal contestation and litigant activism. In civil and criminal law, jury trials and a specific lawyering culture exemplify these traits. Though adversarial legalism responds well to the American desires of justice and protection from harm while simultaneously respecting the societal fear of a government with too much power, it leads to extremely costly litigation and immense legal uncertainty. To reconcile the American view of justice and the undesirable outcomes of formal contestation and litigant activism, the legal system has gone so far as to reform large parts of the system, including bureaucratic regulations and the plea bargaining process.
The Power of an Unelected Judge It is my belief that an unelected judge should have power over decisions regarding the creation and altercation of laws. The issue of whether or not a judge should be a part of the law making process can arise from dialogue theory. Judges have the power to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when imposing a new law or ruling down on a case. Dialogue theory claims that if a judge uses their own judgement to make rulings it could lead to overlooking long time problems or it might be more influenced on personal gain (Dyzenhaus, David, Arthur Ripstein, and Sofia Reibetanz Moreau 592). In fact giving unelected judges this ability allows them to make laws based on the charter being enforced or even differentiate from it if the case requires, a judge must also provide logical explanation behind everything they choose to impose and through these changes it can actually lead to very positive differences in our society.
In the United States criminal justice system, truth seeking ought to take precedence over attorney client privilege because a guilty person could be released and time for the client, attorney, and court would be wasted. In more basic terms, an attorney’s right to disclose vital information to the court should be prioritized before attorney client privilege. As an effect of having attorney client privilege, this could cause guilty criminals to be out and about roaming the everyday world that we live in. The convicted client chooses the facts and details that they would like to reveal to their attorney to supply them with what they need to present their strongest case defending their client. Have you ever heard of a repeat offender?
Under existing federal law, a person or group of convicted of crimes against someone who was targeted “ because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation” faces stiffer federal penalties than those provided under state law. The proposed legislation would eliminate the current requirement that the government prove the perpetrator’s intent. Instead, federal prosecutors could go after hate crimes without proving that the perpetrator was motivated by prejudice. More hate crime legislation will help give victims increased protection, keep streets safer and increased punishment for vicious criminals who base their attacks on hate and bias. More hate crime legislation will give criminals who commit these terrible crimes the punishment they deserve, while it gives innocent victims the peace of mind to know that justice will be done.
The prosecution of international crimes and the end of impunity are core goals of international criminal justice. However, they must be balanced with the rights of the accused and the necessity to have procedural safeguards in international criminal trials. Without such guarantees, the prosecution of heinous international crimes would lose its legitimacy, and the credibility of international criminal tribunals would be undermined. In this context, fairness is the criterion used to distinguish ‘victors’ justice’ from impartial criminal proceedings; to mark the boundary between an unlawful prosecution of international crimes, and the fight against impunity following the highest procedural safeguards. The peculiar nature of international criminal
The strategic model acknowledges that judges seek to achieve policy goals, but it also acknowledges that they are subject to certain restrictions in doing so. Since they cannot act accordingly to preference, they must act strategically to achieve their goals given by the restrictions. It argues that like politicians, justices make their decisions based off other’s decisions or make their decisions while trying to determine how another person will react from it. This decision style says justices would base their decisions on the influence of other justices. The last model of the judicial decision making is the legal model.
However, if the punishment is overly severe, it might be considered unjust. That is why the punishment has to reasonably fit the crime. Thirdly, the faster that the punishment is applied to the offender, the faster future offenders will realize that law is being enforced. (The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates) Even though many believe that deterrence... ... middle of paper ... ...d. Each method has its own benefits and downsides that come with the process. It can also bring risks that could make the process painful when things do not go as they were supposed to.