Notes on Sentencing in British courts
Sentencing Magistrates = max two terms of six months. £5000 fine Crown = No limits. * Murder is mandatory life. * All crimes have maximum sentence. * Theft max 7 yrs. * No minimum sentences. * The Crime (sentences) Act 1997 - min sentences for persistent offenders. * C(S)A 1997 imposed mandatory life or second violent / serious crime. . Aims of Sentencing * Passing sentence J looks at sentence available + what they are trying to achieve in giving a particular sentence. The 6 aims and objectives are: . Retribution: punishment because they deserve it. Revenge. An eye for an eye. Retribution today based on idea each crime has a set tariff. A band which crimes fit into. A sentence is imposed within correct band. Bad because doesn't take into account mitigating factors. 2. Denunciation: this is a way of showing a particular crime or crime in general is considered heinous by society. E.g. drink driving. 3. Incapacitation: punishment serves a useful purpose. Prevents offender, re offending. E.g. death, loss of limbs, long prison sentences, tagging, curfew. Used to protect the public. 4. Deterrence: individual or general. Individual E.g. prison. May deter future actions. Though only if criminal thinks about consequences before committing. Usually drunk etc so do not. General deterrence hopes to deter others from following. Perhaps least fair way and least effective as
The Penal System - Discuss the aims of sentencing and consider other factors the criminal courts will use to reach an appropriate sentence.
THE PENAL SYSTEM Discuss the aims of sentencing and consider other factors the criminal courts will use to reach an appropriate sentence. In order to discuss the aims and influencing factors behind sentencing it is first necessary to establish what is meant by the term, sentencing. Sentencing refers to the judgement of a court stating the punishment to be imposed on a defendant who has pleaded guilty to a crime or been found guilty by the jury. Whilst the Magistrate court has fixed maximum powers, Crown Court judges do not and as such have wide sentencing discretion, (with the exception of Murder and some second offences which have mandatory statutory sentencing). Before turning to the influences on the Judges when it comes to sentencing a defendant, it is first be necessary to establish the different intentions or outcomes a judge may wish to achieve by imposing for instance a community punishment order, a custodial sentence or a fine. There are a number of different theories of punishment, and different aims and purposes underlying the legal provisions for sentencing under the English Legal System. Broadly speaking however the aims of punishment fall into six main categories: * Retribution * Denunciation * Incapacitation * Deterrence * Rehabilitation * Reparation It is clear without even an in depth look that each of these aims that there are inherent
Law - Discribe the British Jury System.
To be eligible for jury service a person must be aged between 18/70 and be registered to vote on the electoral register as se out in the juries Act 1974, as amended by Criminal Justice Act of 1988. However some people, who qualify under the criteria above, are still not allowed to serve on a jury, because they are disqualified or ineligible for some other reason. Some criminal convictions will disqualify you from serving on a jury, the length of time of disqualification depending on the sentence given. In addition, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has disqualified those on bail from sitting as jurors. People suffering from certain mental illness people whose occupations are concerned with the administration of justice or who have been so employed within the last 10 years; this is a wide group as it includes judges, court clerks, Barristers, solicitors and polices, priest, monks and nuns as they could have a biased view. Apart from these group there are also people who have the right to refuse to do jury service; they are 'excusable as of right' this group includes: Members of Parliament, those serving in the armed forces, doctors, nurses and pharmacist anyone aged 65 to 70, anyone who has done jury service within the last years. Jurors are now always selected by computers at a central summoning bureau jurors are selected from computerised list of the
Describe the different aims of sentencing.
Iain Byrom AS Law- Machinery of Justice Describe the different aims of sentencing. There are a number of reasons why a society punishes offenders. These include, among others, to discourage the offender from committing further crimes (individual deterrence), to help the offender, so that he or she won't offend again (rehabilitation), to prevent the offender from committing further crimes through imprisonment (incapacitation) and to show society's disapproval of the crime (denunciation). Retribution is to punish on the premise that it is a payback for the offence (Retribution carries with it the notion of "Do the crime, do the time") Reparation is aimed at compensating the victim of the crime usually by ordering the offender to pay order to make restitution. Deterrence can as stated individual it can also be general sentence. Individual deterrence is intended to insure that the offender does not re-offend through fear of future punishment. General deterrence is aimed at preventing other potential offenders from committing crimes. Both are aimed at reducing future levels of crime. Critics of the theory of deterrence argue that offenders are unlikely to stop and consider the possible consequences of their actions - most crimes are committed in the spur of the moment. In addition it is usually the fear of being caught that is more of a deterrent and that while crime
On Sept. 16, 1995, after fatally stabbing her husband as he slept, 19-year-old Jamie Tanis Gladue shrieked:
On Sept. 16, 1995, after fatally stabbing her husband as he slept, 19-year-old Jamie Tanis Gladue shrieked: "I got you...bastard." In addition to getting her husband, however, Mr. Gladue disregarded the rule of law. In the course of confirming Ms. Gladue's sentence of three years for manslaughter -- only six months of which were served behind bars -- the Supreme Court of Canada scolded the trial judge for not giving due attention to the killer's "Indianness." This ruling follows the guidelines within section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, stating that judges must pay "particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders." Thus Canada's top court gave its assent to legal prejudice by allowing the same offence to be punished differently depending on the ethnicity of the offender. The court justified this extraordinary decision, in effect, by denouncing judges across the country for their "over-reliance (sic) on incarceration" for aboriginal offenders. For instance, the Court pointed out that a male treaty Indian is 25 times as likely to be incarcerated in a provincial jail as a non-native and that aboriginals, though only 3% of the Canadian population, make up almost 15% of federal prisoners. The extent of native incarceration, declared the court, was "so stark and appalling that the magnitude of the problem can be neither understood nor interpreted away."
Explain the reference to 'the authors of that instrument did not intend to include Negroes.'
Speech on the Dred Scott Decision Explain the reference to 'the authors of that instrument did not intend to include Negroes.' This Speech was delivered in June 26th 1857, by Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had recently joined the Republican Party, having been in the House of Representatives since 1846. The Speech was made following the decision by the Supreme Court about a slave (Dred Scott) who was requesting liberty, based on the fact that he had travelled through a free-state and a free territory (Wisconsin) with his army surgeon owner who had since died in 1843, leaving Scott as the property of a relative. With the help of anti-slavery lawyers, Scott took his case before the Missouri courts, claiming he was free having lived in a Free State and Free Territory. The case took a long time and was taken to the Missouri Supreme court who voted against him. His lawyers then took his case to the Federal courts. Eventually it went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had been headed by Chief Justice Taney, whom Lincoln refers to in his speech. He was committed to Southern values. The Court, consisting of 5 Southern judges and 4 Northern judges, had decided not to allow Scott his freedom. The Court had argued based on the Constitution of 1787 (the instrument referred to in the speech) by the Founding Fathers (the authors referred to in the speech). The Court had argued that 'all
Can we agree that if the death penalty is right then it is also good and if it is wrong, it is also bad
Can we agree that if the death penalty is right then it is also good and if it is wrong, it is also bad? Of course, our first concern should be, what does the Bible teach about the state putting people to death? If we can ascertain that then it doesn't matter what philosophers, theologians, sociologists, criminologists and weeping, whining and whimpering liberals have to say about the subject. Genesis 9:6 clearly teaches that if a man sheds another person's blood, then his life will be taken by the government. Moses wrote, "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." When a person premeditatedly takes a life, he not only assaults society but attacks God since man was made in His image. For those who accept the Bible as binding on what we believe and practice, that should settle the issue. Advantage: justice, retribution, it's what the people want Disadvantage: possibility of miscarriages of justice Advantage: Justice, Safety, Law and Order Disadvantage: Innocents could be wrongly accused, Not enough evidence to commit someone Advantage: Deterrent to murderers Disadvantage: Might kill innocent person Advantage: Less murderers and rapists, You need more than that?, Taxes spent on things that deserve it Disadvantage: Not a brilliant deterrent, Innocent people Advantage: justice, retribution, it's what the people
How effectively does Gary Kilworth convey his Ideas on law and justice in his story Murderers Walk?
How effectively does Gary Kilworth convey his Ideas on law and justice in his story Murderers Walk? In the story murderers walk, Gary Kilworth conveys his ideas on law and justice very effectively by using narrative voice, narrative structure, setting, use of language, plot and characterisation. The central premise of this story is that natural justice should and will always prevail. The plot of this story is a game. You are introduced in the exposition to murderers walk, a free city state with no law. Kilworth explains about the elated feelings of criminals that have escaped the law, which leads on to an explanation of the game they play in the inns. Groups of nine murderers play a card game to decide their own death sentences. The loser, the player receiving the ace of spades must commit suicide within 24 hours. We are introduced to our main character that remains nameless throughout. He is a newcomer, who begins to play the game to feel that rush of adrenaline at escaping death again. We reach the climax as he loses. 24 hours of pure hell, thinking about death, before his life is over. Then denouement, just before death another player enters with two jokers and the game is declared void. The resolution being you are dragged kicking and screaming to play another game and relive the torture. The narrative voice of the story is quite unconventional. It is told in second
Judgment at Nuremberg.
Judgment at Nuremberg The Nuremberg trials took place between 1945 and 1949 and were used to judge the acts of over a hundred judges accused of committing war crimes. The movie "Trials at Nuremberg" dealt specifically with the justice trials. The justice trials adjudicated the criminal responsibility of judges accused of enforcing immoral, unjust, and inhumane laws set by the Nazi party. Justice Werner Lammpe Werner Lammpe was accused of sending numerous citizens to concentration camps where they were later killed. I feel that he was innocent because he did not have the mens rea to commit these crimes. He did send people to the camps but had no knowledge of the mass killings that were about to take place. This is most obvious in the cafeteria scene where he ask the other 3 judges how they could have known what was happening behind the walls of the many camps. Justice Frieidrich Hofstetter Frieidrich Hofstetter was accused of sending numerous Jewish and mentally handicapped citizens to be sterilized. Under the Nuremberg laws set by the Nazi party, this was a necessary action to ensure the progression of a pure Aryan race. Justice Hofstetter was doing his duty as a judge to send these people for sterilization; if he would have chosen not comply with the rules set by the Nazi party her could be punished. According to the laws of the time, what he did was legal therefore I
Describe the routes of appeal for the defence from both the Magistrates Court and from the Crown Court.
Question 3 Describe the routes of appeal for the defence from both the Magistrates Court and from the Crown Court. From the crown court there are two different appeal routes either case sated appeal to the Queens Bench Divisional Court or to the Crown Court. If it is by way of case stated is it only when the appeal is on a point of law. The magistrates state the case (tell the facts) then the Queen Bench Divisional Court can either quash the decision, confirm it or remit the case to the magistrates' Court for re-hearing. The magistrates are asking for advice about a point of law. A further appeal is possible to the House of Lords but only on a point of law of general public importance and the House of Lords (or QBD) must give permission to appeal. This only happens very rarely. If the appeal goes to the Crown Court Defendants may appeal on a point of law or fact. If they pleaded not guilty, they can appeal against conviction or sentence; if they pleaded guilty, against sentence only. Appeals are heard by a Crown Court Judge and not less than two and not more than four magistrates. An appeal against conviction is a complete rehearing of the whole case, therefore evidence not put before the magistrates may be adduced at the appeal. An appeal against sentence is a rehearing of the sentencing process only. There is no further appeal unless a point of law is involved. If the
