Criminal Justice
Running Head: CRJ SCENARIO Criminal Justice Scenerio Leslie Capurro Criminal Justice 102 Randy Floccini Truckee Meadows Community College In this paper I will discuss what I would morally and personally do in a scenario. The scenario places me in a tough position between my job, and my significant other. I have to choose to give my significant other up to the police while risking my job, or still risk my job and not turn my significant other in. Criminal Justice Scenario One morning I woke up at my usual time, and I continued on with my daily routine as I headed off to my job at the Reno Police Department. I was more tired that day than normal because my husband had come home the night before acting strangely. I thought that was going to be a busy day. We'd already gotten a call to keep an eye out for a red Mercedes-Benz, apparently it was involved in a hit and run accident the night before. With no luck finding the Mercedes-Benz I headed home at the end of my shift to find a rental car in the garage. I asked my husband why he had the rental car and he would only tell me that someone had backed into the red Mercedes-Benz, and that he had dropped it off to be repaired at a shop. I became a bit suspicious but didn't really think much of it. Six months down the road my husband came to me and told me that he was the person who was involved in the hit and run in the red
Homicide. Unlawful killing is when and a person of sound mind and of the age of discretion can commit the actus Reus of murder by unlawfully killing another person. This means that the defendant in a murder case must be legally responsible for his actions
Homicide The act of homicide is broken down in English law to murder and manslaughter, in other countries such as the USA murder or manslaughter is usually referred to just as homicide. In the USA murder is broken down into different degrees however in English law it is not, it is murder which follows with a mandatory life sentence. There can be various different types of manslaughter dependent on the situation and very different aspects involved with the crime itself. Unlawful killing is when and a person of sound mind and of the age of discretion can commit the actus Reus of murder by unlawfully killing another person. This means that the defendant in a murder case must be legally responsible for his actions and cannot be classed as insane, cannot have committed the crime under diminished responsibility and has to be a person and not a corporation. Currently in England the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old, over the years there have been calls for this to be raised to 12 and in some cases 14, this would follow many other countries throughout the world. A key argument in this case is that the murder of Jamie Bulger in 1993 was carried out by two 10 year olds and although child murderers are uncommon, should it happen again in the future, the children who are involved in the act would not be held responsible for their actions. The actus reus in murder is
The Lindbergh kidnapping
Introduction In what was called the crime of the century, the Lindbergh kidnapping was the abduction and murder of the twenty month-old son of world famous aviator, Charles Lindbergh Sr., on March 1, 1932. In addition to fame, the Lindbergh's were known as an affluent family during the Great Depression. While their social status and ability to pay a ransom made them more susceptible to be a kidnapping target, the very young age of their child increased the inherent risky outcome of such an act altogether (Douglas et al., 1992). Lindbergh Jr., was snatched from his nursery by someone climbing up to the second floor nursery window using a ladder that was later found near the house. The kidnapper(s) left behind a ransom note that was followed by twelve more, requesting $70,000 dollars. The New Jersey State Police, assumed charge of the investigation, but Lindbergh Sr. wanted his friends to communicate with the kidnappers. Eventually, a ransom of $50,000 in gold certificates was handed over to the kidnapper by an intermediate, Dr. John Condon. Dr. Condon would later identify the stranger as "sounding foreign" (Fisher 1999). Seventy-three days after he was kidnapped, the body of the Lindbergh child was, by accident, found in Hopewell, New Jersey, four and one half miles southeast from where he was abducted. The body of the child had a
Personalism-impact on victims and how Restorative justice conference can balance the interest of victims and the public.
Introduction There are many different definitions of crime. One is as in the current justice system, which views crime as an act or omission that the law makes punishable. The other system, which has been increasingly popular in recent years, is restorative justice, which perceives crime as 'an injury of people and relationships' (Zehr, 1990) rather than merely a violation of law and social norms. Due to these conceptual differences, they take different approaches in response to crime. The existing system highlights the retributive and punitive domain; it intends to establish blame on offenders and make offenders repay their debt to society by punishment. The system is more offender-oriented and its focus is the past rather than the future. Besides establishing blames, it tends to give less attention on future-oriented concerns like how to repair the damages caused by the crime and how future recurrences can be prevented. It has been argued that the existing system places excessive emphasis on the past and is less constructive to victim, offenders and the society. From the restorative justice perspective, crime is viewed as social conflicts within the society. Restorative justice system was designed to restore social harmony and repair the damages of social conflicts. It begins with repairing the harm suffered by victims and assisting the reformation of offenders. It
Attempt to establish the relative advantages of both custodial and non-custodial sentencing in relation to punishing offenders in the United Kingdom.
The purpose of this essay will be to attempt to establish the relative advantages of both custodial and non-custodial sentencing in relation to punishing offenders in the United Kingdom. The concept and rationale for punishment will be discussed, drawing on theoretical perspectives as analytical and evaluative tools. The essay will conclude with an overall evaluation of the merits and demerits of custodial vis à vis non-custodial sentencing and a projection for the future of sentencing. Garland defines punishment as a 'complex social institution,' arguing that it is a mechanism for dealing with criminals in a legally administrative way, but that it is also an expression of state power, a statement of collective prevailing morality, emotional expression and economically-linked social policy (Garland, 1990, p. 287). Punishment may also be defined as anything that is unpleasant, a burden, or an imposition of some sort on an offender. Thus, compensation is a punishment, as is having to attend a counselling program, paying a fine, having to report to a probation officer on a regular basis, or doing work for a crime victim (Duff 1992, p. 73; Davis 1992, pp. 44-45). Why society punishes and what punishment can and cannot accomplish are central issues to this essay so that the concept of punishment, manner and the degree to which it is metered out can be understood; not just
"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed" - Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition.
"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed" Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition using examples drawn from any of the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt. 'All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed', during this essay I shall critically evaluate this statement, using examples from the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt. The definition of Inchoate offences, are the incomplete offences. I shall first explain the actus reus and the mens rea required for all the inchoate offences. The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement with another or others that a course of conduct will be pursued, which if carried out by their instructions, will lead to an offence. The mens rea of conspiracy is intention, although in Anderson 1986 the House of Lords decided that the defendant was to be found guilty even when intention was not established. The actus reus of incitement is when the offender urges, suggests, persuades, etc. another to commit a crime. The mens rea of incitement is again intention, this intention is to bring about the required result. The actus reus of attempts exists when a party does an act, which is more than merely preparatory. Once again intention is the
The concept of retribution implies.
Theories to be discussed:- * Retribution * Rehabilitation * Incapacitation * Deterrence The concept of retribution implies: A criminal deserves to be punished because he has done something socially or morally evil... * Is eye for an eye punishment In 1993 Michael Howard, the then Home secretary made a statement saying: "Let's make one thing absolutely clear; Prison works, it ensures we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists; and it makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice. This may mean that more people will go to prison. I do not flinch from that, we shall no longer judge the success of our system of justice by a fail in our prison population" (Ashton J, Wilson D: 16: 1998) * conviction for rape can carry a life sentence Look at R v Billam (1986), which sets out sentence tariffs for rape. This case set out guidelines for imprisonment of rapists, Billam suggests that rape carries an automatic custodial sentence, 'other than in wholly exceptional circumstances', the maximum sentence for rape is life, although, In terms of mitigation, if a plea of guilty is entered, effectively relieving the victim of the ordeal of having to appear in court, the guidelines state that this 'should normally result in some reduction from what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence'. Rehabilitation: Emphasis on the individual can be seen no more clearly
How satisfactory is the current law on non-fatal offences against the person?
How satisfactory is the current law on non-fatal offences against the person? (25) Non-fatal offences against the person are assault, battery, assault or battery occasioning actually bodily harm, malicious wounding and GBH with intent. The first two offences are defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, with the remainder being found in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. There is a variety of sentences available ranging from imprisonment for 6 months to a life sentence for the most serious offence of GBH with intent (s.18 OAPA 1861). Some would argue that the OAPA 1861 is a very badly drafted piece of legislation, which is merely a consolidation of a number of old offences being grouped together. Because of this, there have been many appeals against convictions regarding this act. There is still no clear statutory definition of assault and battery, while the definitions of the more serious offences are contained in act over 100 years old, leading some to think that they are outdated. Much of the vocabulary in the Act is misleading, with the would "maliciously" having two definitions, one for the s.18 offence, and another for the s.20. This has led the Joint Charging Standard to clarify the issue of what charge to bring for different levels of injury, although even that is wrong; any injury which causes blood to flow could be charged as wounding, even a grazed knee.
Freedom of Expression
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise we don't believe in it at all" this famous quote by Noam Chomsky could be debated about without coming to a conclusion for the simple that the term "freedom of expression" can mean various things to different people and include or exclude certain benefits. Therefore, no one can really agree or disagree with freedom of expression for everyone without arguing about the very definition of it. According to BusinessDictionary.com freedom of expression is defined as "Right to express one's ideas and opinions freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication but without deliberately causing harm to others' character and/or reputation by false or misleading statements. Freedom of press is part of freedom of expression." This is only one example of how to define freedom of expression keeping this definition in mind, I do agree with freedom of expression if it entails what was put out in the definition. I will explain how the limiting of freedom of expression is directly related to the creation of laws in society and what the laws are supposed to achieve in relation to substantive/procedural, statutory/common and public/private. If freedom of expression offends other peoples beliefs, culture, ideas, identity that is when limitations on this "expression", although insults is not really expression it is
Viscount Sankey's Golden Thread Speech
In this essay I will be illustrating the importance of Viscount Sankey's speech in the case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] All ER, utilising references as evidence to support my findings and demonstrate my understanding. In the case of Woolmington v DPP Woolmington had shot and killed his wife, Violet, who had left him a month earlier and gone to stay with her mother. When charged with Violet's murder Woolmington claimed that he hadn't intended to shoot Violet and the gun had accidently fired when he was attempting to show her the gun, insisting the gun was only to scare Violet into returning to him. The ruling took place in the House of Lords, where the issue was focused around if the statement of law in 'Foster's Crown Law'1 was correct where it states 'where a death occurred it is presumed to be murder unless proven otherwise'. In his summary, Swift J brought Fosters Crown Law to the attention of the jury, stating that 'the prosecution prove the killing, and in the absence of explanation that is murder.'2 This suggests that according to Fosters law there is only a necessity for the prosecution to prove the actus reus, or the actual physical aspects of murder of killing an individual as opposed to proving both mens rea or the mental aspect of an action, and actus reus. Swift J went onto comment that 'Consider whether you entertain the slightest doubt that this was a
