![a) Explain the function of the CPS [14] b) evalate the effectiveness of the CPS [11]](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/938450/listing/938450_1.jpg)
a) Explain the function of the CPS [14] b) evalate the effectiveness of the CPS [11]
a) Explain the function of the CPS [14] b) evalate the effectiveness of the CPS [11] a) The CPS are the Crown Presecution Service and it is there for when a crime is committed, the different parts of the criminal justice system on behalf of the society. The CPS are a non-ministerial of the government of the United Kingdom. The CPS was sets out to chose if prosecutions are refused, discontinued or proceeded with. A case will only be prosecuted firstly, if there is sufficient evidence that provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against each defendant on each charge, and secondly, if it is in 'the public interest to prosecute'. There is three parts to the criminal justice system, if a person is suspected of a crime or offence, this is when the police investigate and gather evidence the crime and arrest the suspects. The CPS then decide what charges are faced and weather or not to prosecute them. They then carry out the prosecution. The courts then decide weather othe defendant is guilty or not guilty. The decision weather or not to prosecute a person used to be in the control of the police. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure 1989 felt that it was inappropriate for the police to make the decision about whether or not to prosecute the crime. The reason why they did not want the police to be a part of that was because they are too involved in a case because they
One method a judge can use to interpret the factitious statue is using three rules which are Literal rule, Golden rule and Mischief rule. Under the literal rule, the rules of the statue have to follow even if they are unreasonable as they are in the Dange
Assignment 1.5 One method a judge can use to interpret the factitious statue is using three rules which are Literal rule, Golden rule and Mischief rule. Under the literal rule, the rules of the statue have to follow even if they are unreasonable as they are in the Dangerous Animals Act 2000. The Literal rule gives all the words in a statue their ordinary and natural meaning; this means all the rules of a statue has to be followed even if it will produce unsatisfactory results. An advantage of the Literal rule is, it respects parliamentary sovereignty, giving the courts a restricted role and leaving law-making to those elected for the job. But a disadvantage of the Literal rule is it can provide inadequate results such as in the case of London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946). In this case a railway worker was killed by a train and his widow attempted to claim damages. The relevant statue provided that this was available to employees killed while engaging in 'relaying or repairing' tracks; the dead man had been doing routine maintenance and oiling which the court held did not come within the meaning of 'relaying and repairing'. The Golden rule is used if the literal rule gives an absurd result. Advantages of this rule is it prevents absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule and it also helps the courts put into practice what Parliament really meant,
Explain how jurors are chosen and the role of the jury in a crown court trial
A, Explain how jurors are chosen and the role of the jury in a crown court trial The right to trial by jury can be traced back to Magna Carta (The Great Charter of Liberties, 1215) and the independence of the jury from the judge was established in Bushell's Case (1670). In criminal cases, the jury make the decision whether the defendant is guilty or not guilt. However, this is approximately only 3% of all crimes, and these are heard in the Crown Court. In civil cases, the jury decide if the claimant has proved their case and the amount of damages (compensation). Nevertheless, it is a right in only four types of civil case, which are: defamation over £10,000, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and fraud. In other civil cases it is discretionary. To be on a jury you need to qualify. To qualify for jury service a person must be aged between 18 and 70, registered on the electoral roll, and they must have lived in the UK for at least five years since the age of 13. People are ineligible for jury service if they are suffering from certain mental disorders, if they are part of the judiciary and/or linked to others concerned with the administration of justice, and finally, if they are a member of the Clergy. Those with certain criminal convictions, and those currently on bail in criminal proceedings are automatically disqualified for jury service for 10 years, for
The Criminal Justice System: A Questionable Egalitarian Model
The Criminal Justice System: A Questionable Egalitarian Model Two basic forces can be found at work in the daily operation of the criminal justice system. On the one hand, it can be seen that the components of the criminal justice system are parts of organizational bureaucracies, which emphasize "initiative," often times at the expense of adherence to rules and regulations. On the other hand, there is the "rule of law," which emphasizes the rights of individual citizens and is designed to maintain constraints on the initiative of legal officials. The tension between these two forces constitutes one of the main problems of criminal justice agencies in their attempts to operate as democratic institutions. Furthermore, the tension between "order" and "legality" is related to the public demand that the institutions of criminal justice actually provide justice, rather than merely intending to provide it. For various reasons, there is widespread suspicion in society that the institutions of criminal justice are failing to actually secure justice. This suspicion, in turn, is eroding the trust and confidence imbued upon these institutions by the very constituency they are responsible for serving. This paper will discuss this statement as it relates to the three major segments of the criminal justice system: law enforcement, courts, and corrections. Many scholars in the
Should Justice be the Supreme Virtue of Societies
Should Justice be the Supreme Virtue of Societies? Social justice is distributive. It operates under the principle that each person must get his or her due. However, it is quite contentious as to precisely what each person's due is and thus opens the debate as to what justice is. Moreover, once a definition of justice is agreed upon (in a particular state), the question may be raised of how important it is. Is justice salient, or is there another concept that transcends its authority? Some argue that an aggregative concept would best suit a first principle (if indeed there were one). I would argue that justice is indeed salient, that without it there would be no such thing as civil society and therefore that it is the supreme virtue of society. Justice has long been heralded as key to the creation and maintenance of a society, yet why this is has been harder to pinpoint. Pascal argued in Pensees that "force without justice is tyranny." Underlying this contention is the idea that equality amongst all people is inherently good and should be sought after. This is because he assumes that tyranny is a bad thing and that in order for force to be used to good ends it needs to be justified. How can any force be justified? If an individual or a group has entered in to some sort of a contract and subsequently broken it, then it seems just that they are punished through force.
Are all Supreme Court Appointments controversial and what is the significance of Bush's two most recent nominations
Are all Supreme Court Appointments controversial and what is the significance of Bush's two most recent nominations? The Justices which make up the Supreme Court are appointed as opposed to elected and therefore they are called into question as a democratic body. "An unelected body of judges possesses the power to declare unconstitutional those legislative acts passed by the people's elected representatives." - Bob McKeever. The fact that they are not politically accountable to the people or their representatives and yet hold extensive powers makes them controversial in a country, which prides itself on being a democratic state. However, the Supreme Court provides an alternative to elected representatives who may work in their best interests, as opposed to those they represent and only hold office for a matter of years. The Justices work independently of this system and therefore it could be suggested that they make the American political system more varied. Their main functions are to resolves conflicts between states, to maintain the national supremacy and to ensure the uniformity of interpretation of national laws. One of the main reasons the Court is so controversial is because of the amount of power they hold. For instance in the case of Roe vs. Wade (1972), in which the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to allow women to have abortions, changed the face of
International Criminal Court-the Scope for Intervention.
International Criminal Court-the Scope for Intervention. By Kirill Kruchinin Allegations of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity have undoubtedly received unprecedented press coverage in recent years - more than at any time since Nuremberg. This is not because the incidences of such barbarities have increased - ARE YOU SURE? - , but simply because those crimes are brought to us more rapidly these days BY THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA. Since the early 1990's the international community has witnessed of a variety of criminal tribunals that were meant to promote peace-making and political transition in situations of gross violations of human rights and armed conflict among ethnical or religious groups. This tendency led to the establishment BY THE UN of two ad hoc Tribunals-for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda-and OF the International Criminal Court (ICC). There was also a proliferation of 'mixed' judicial bodies-in Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor-composed of both national and international judges and enforcing domestic as well as international criminal law. It is perhaps most cynical to assert that transitional societies, convalescing from conflict or moving from oppression towards democracy, have developed a variety of ways of dealing with past war crimes and human rights abuses. Irrefutably they have united the short-term and long-term goals of ending
'Restorative Justice' - what's it about?
'Restorative Justice' - what's it about? Our present justice system responds to criminal activity with the question "how do we punish?" A Restorative Justice system asks the question: "how do we restore the well-being of the victim, the offender and the community?" It recognises the needs of the victims, who are at present so often left out altogether, and creates an opportunity for them to confront the offender with the hurt they have caused, in a face to face meeting in a controlled and supportive environment. It puts a human face on the victim for the offender, which can be the first step to understanding, remorse and apology. Their oddly worded aim is to try "to get victims to move towards healing, repentance, forgiveness and restoration". Restorative Justice explores a cutting edge concept in criminal justice. At the heart of this new approach is reconciling right relationships between the victim, the offender and the community. Restorative justice is a holistic solution that allows the victim to find peace and security and at the same time create a way for the offender to earn his or her way back into the community. The goal, as it was designed and as it has borne out, is to make the community a safer, more whole place through a commonly experienced healing process. When a crime is committed, the entire community suffers. We see that all the time in our nightly
Describe the powers of the police to detain, interview and search at the police station, a person suspected of an SAO.
Question - Describe the powers of the police to detain, interview and search at the police station, a person suspected of an SAO. The police force of England and Wales has various powers that allow them to uphold the law. These powers are given in section 66 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Before PACE came into force, the powers of the police were spread across 70 acts of parliament, which resulted in confusion of what they could and couldn't do, and more importantly, it resulted in the police abusing these powers. PACE summarised the powers into codes A-F, however, recently codes G and H have come into force, which deal with statutory powers of arrest and detention of terrorist suspects. The powers in question, those of detention, questioning, and searching of suspects are given in code C. Under section 24 of PACE, the police have the right to detain somebody suspected of a serious arrestable offence (SAO). An SAO is defined as an offence that usually carries a jail sentence e.g. murder, rape, acts of terrorism. A strict time scale must be followed after the arrest. For most offences, the suspect can be detained for up to 24 hours. For more serious offences, and with permission from a senior officer, the police can detain for 36 hours. In order to gather evidence, with the permission from a magistrate, a suspect may be detained for up to 96 hours.
Demonstrate your understanding of both the UK civil and criminal court systems and their hierarchical structures.
Demonstrate your understanding of both the UK civil and criminal court systems and their hierarchical structures. The divide between criminal and civil law can be identified by the factions represented in court. In a civil court, i.e. magistrates, county or the high court, the two participants are private individuals. In a criminal court, i.e. magistrates, crown or the high court, one of the opposing parties is always the state; theoretically the Queen (represented by the Crown Prosecution Service), the other being the defendant; an individual person. An important similarity between criminal law and civil law to consider is that they both have a common purpose, most notably to control people's behaviour by setting limits on what acts are permissible in this country. Both have their own remedies. Civil law deals with individual wrongs. Criminal law deals with wrongs against society. In practice the difference between a civil and a criminal matter can be derived from who brings the case. A criminal matter is brought by the government, whereas a civil matter is brought by another person (or some private entity). The majority of private law is comprised of civil cases, mainly concerning a claimant and a defendant. Such cases arise when one individual has a grievance against another for personal harm done be it physical or mental, and therefore seeks compensation. An action has
