Traditionally, the criminal law process, in its quest for a 'fair' and 'just' trial, at almost every stage, accords certain safeguards to, and confers certain fights and privileges on, those suspect/accused of crime. Administration of penal justice, which is visibly dominated by the 'humanitarian and therapeutic approach' to criminality also resorts to every possible 'measure' within its reach to 'reform' and 'treat' a convict for his better 'reformation' and 're-socialisation' and thereby to 're-assimilate' him in the social mainstream.
However, the Criminal Justice Delivery System (CJDS) does not, unfortunately, exhibit similar 'sensitivity' and 'concern' for a victim of crime — the second partner of the so-called 'penal couple'— and to
…show more content…
the police, who, in turn, after inquiry and investigation, approaches the 'guilt-determination agency of the state', i.e. a competent criminal court. However, the police, the first State agency with whom a of crime comes in contact, in most of the cases, either show theirindifferent attitude to him or professional insincerity and apathy to register his complaint. Police, unfortunately, in majority of the cases, treat him as an accused and start harassing him under the guise of collecting adequate information from him for setting 'directions of their investigations. Investigation of his complaint is exclusively within the police domain. A victim/informant has no role to, play in it unless the Investigation Officer (IO) concerned considers it necessary. Further, if he is required to participate in the criminal justice process as a material source of evidence, i.e. prosecution witness, he puts himself in a position of some vulnerability. He is at the mercy of questioning by prosecution and defence lawyer alike. He has, if necessary, to identify the 'suspects' of the crime. He, being a material source ()I' information, also takes the risk of being intimidated by the accused directly or through his friends or well-wishers indirectly to dissuade and deter him from deposing the 'truth'. Frequent …show more content…
'The United Nations Declaration on Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power' (UN Basic Principles), premised on recommendations of the Sixth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, was passed on November 29, 1985 by the UN General Assembly (UNGA), is worth mentioning here. Recalling that millions of victims of crime and of abuse of power are neither well-protected in CJS nor are their reparatory rights adequately recognised and protected under CJDS and realising that a million of such victims, and their families, are being made to sustain 'injury' or to incur 'loss', the UNGA, through the Basic Principles, not only urged its members to treat 'victims' with 'compassion and respect' but also urged to resort to appropriate measures at the internationnal, regional and national levels to improve their access to justice and fair treatment, restitution, compensation and assistance. Based on the conviction of the international community that victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity and that they are
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.
Saint Augustine once said, “In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?” The criminal justice system in America has been documented time and time again as being a legal system that borders on the surreal. We as Americans live in a country where the Justice Department has failed to collect on $7 billion in fines and restitutions from thirty-seven thousand corporations and individuals convicted of white collar crime. That same Justice Department while instead spending more than 350% since 1980 on total incarceration expenditures totaling $80 billion dollars. America has become a place where a 71-year-old man will get 150 years in prison for stealing $68 billion dollars from nearly everyone in the country and a five-time petty offender in Dallas was sentenced to one thousand years in prison for stealing $73.
...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.
The Criminal Justice System, a framework the British government set up to manage the treatment of culprits, has three principle objectives to accomplish social request, these are, (1) implementing criminal law, (2) keeping up peace in the general public, and (3) helping casualties. This may appear to be a well-considered framework, yet like some other association, there are blemishes, and one of the real imperfections is separation, and the predisposition that originates from segregation.
In Western cultures imprisonment is the universal method of punishing criminals (Chapman 571). According to criminologists locking up criminals may not even be an effective form of punishment. First, the prison sentences do not serve as an example to deter future criminals, which is indicated, in the increased rates of criminal behavior over the years. Secondly, prisons may protect the average citizen from crimes but the violence is then diverted to prison workers and other inmates. Finally, inmates are locked together which impedes their rehabilitation and exposes them too more criminal
All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...
In prisons today, rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are all elements that provide a justice to society. Prisons effectively do their part in seeing that one if not more of these elements are met and successfully done. If it were not for these elements, than what would a prison be good for? It is highly debated upon whether or not these elements are done properly. It is a fact that these are and a fact that throughout the remainder of time these will be a successful part of prison life.
This essay has identified sanctions imposed on offenders including imprisonment and community corrections. Described how punishment is justified with the just desert and deterrence theory. Discussing the rate of individuals being imprison comparted to community, provided rates for assault which shows crime being maintained and community member feel safe enough to allow for this to
When an individual enters the criminal justice system, it always begins with the police. So in order for police to be involved in any situation, there has to be a crime committed or violation of any law which has been put in place by the government. As the police act as the enforcement agents of these laws, they are the first ones to be involved. There are four steps that police follows when there is a crime – the crime itself, the report of the crime, the investigation of the crime, and the arrest to finish this process – these are the very basic avenues which police follows.
...ns constitute a structural network of supervision, in which individuals may not only be subjected to power, but also play a role in employing and exercising power. Moreover, individuals internalize such and act accordingly. As such, there has been a greater possibility for intervention in individuals’ lives, not only in terms of illegal actions but also crimes against abnormalities. The aim of contemporary discipline is the transformation of individuals into productive forces of society. The basic functioning of society rests on such. Ultimately, the nineteenth century penal regime- not limited to the judicial system- has been largely successful in exerting disciplinary power. Not only has disciplinary power dispersed outside the walls of prison, but moreover, members of society have remained unaware of its presence, as they conform to and participate in it.
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.
It is just as difficult to prevent those who commit misdeeds in prison as it is to prevent that person from committing the crime, this is why tougher punishment is of high importance. Focusing on reform will not deter an inmate from misbehaving within or outside of prison. A unpleasant punishment however, will turn away a criminal from his misbehaviors while incarcerated and with the enduring impression of prison life outside of the cell walls. Although this article fails to address those circumstances that an inmate will need solitary confinement, it does prevail in bringing light to those few who are mistreated in prison facilities. The article those who are mistreated on the other hand are sparse and should be treated differently from those who are stable and
UK: Willan Publishing Co., Ltd. Verkaik, R. (2006) The Big Question: What are the alternatives to prison, and do they work? The Independent [online] 10 October. Available from: Johnstone, G. and Ness, D. (2007) Handbook of Restorative Justice.
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.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,