One is only justified in punishing individual offenders on the basis that they deserve punishment, it hence follows only those receiving punishment should deserve it - discussed
I would generally agree that one is only justified in punishing individual offenders on the basis that they deserve punishment, it hence follows only those receiving punishment should deserve it. Sentencing practice is that punishment is based not only on the crime and the circumstances of the crime, but also on the aims of the sentencing. A detailed explanation of the effects of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is not appropriate here, a mere appreciation of the consequent individualism that goes into the majority of sentences is sufficient. Exceptions to the norm shall be discussed later. Punishment must meet the needs of both individual and society and there are four competing theories as to why we should punish. The retributive theory looks back to the crime, and punishes because of what has been done. The other three theories, namely deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation, look ahead to the consequences of punishment and as a result try to achieve crime reduction. They are often called consequentialist or utilitarian theories. Deterrence theories are concerned with the consequences of punishment on others' future actions. Their aim is to reduce further crime by example or by threat of punishment. In theory, deterrence operates at three levels. Individual or specific deterrence hopes that the suffering endured from previous punishment will be so
offences against property
Criminal Law is an institutional designed to protect society against certain substantial harm by imposing sanctions on the offenders. In other words, it states what one ought to do or else they suffer. Inevitably one is arrested, tried and punished in case he is found guilty of breach of any criminal law. A crime is a legal wrong to the public consequence of which is that the offender if detected and it is decided to prosecute him, the prosecution is done by the state and if the offender is found guilty, he/she is liable to be punished. A crime is an act or omission that is punishable by the law. A crime is a public wrong. This is as defined by Smith & Hogan. Therefore every member of the public is supposed to bring a criminal for prosecution whether or not he/she has suffered a special harm over and above any other member of the public. Article 250 (4)1 provides that in the title of any criminal proceedings, the prosecution shall be designated by the word "Uganda". A criminal is a person who has committed such a legally forbidden act or omission. Purpose of Criminal Law . It forbids and prevents conduct that is unjustifiable and inexcusable and causes or threatens substantial harm to an individual or property i.e. force respect for life and property. 2. It subjects to public control persons whose conduct indicates they are inclined to committing crime. 3. it safeguards
Critical Analysis of Criminal Law cases
Criminal Law Assignment MSC Forensic Accounting Paul Senior Student ID: 14031395 January 2008 CONTENTS Page(s) . Introduction 3 2. Intention in English Law 4 3. Analysis of Cases 5 3.1. Moloney 5 3.2. Hancock & Shankland 7 3.3. Nedrick 8 3.4. Walker & Hayles 9 3.5. Woolin 10 4. Conclusions 11 5. References, Table of Cases and Table of Statutes 12 . Introduction Moloney and its progeny do not reflect creditably on English law...Because there is no set definition, unmeritorious defendants may win appeals against judges' directions when they might not have been able to even bring an appeal had the law been clear. (Jefferson, 2007, p104) In Jefferson's statement above, he refers to concerns at the confusion evident in English law surrounding specific terms used in murder trials. Jefferson believes that the lack of clarity of the law in relation to intention could result in unmeritorious defendants launching, and subsequently winning appeals against their convictions, and that had the House of Lords clarified the law, such results could be avoided. Intention is defined by the Oxford dictionary of Law (2006) as 'the state of mind of one who aims to bring about a particular consequence'. Taking the definition a step further, the dictionary states oblique intention as 'a jury is entitled to find that the accused intended the consequences of his action if
Discuss the disposals available within the criminal justice system that can respond to the relevant offences in the given case study.
In this assignment I will discuss the disposals available within the criminal justice system that can respond to the relevant offences in the given case study. I will also identify the legislation and policies on which they are based. Explanations for criminal behaviour will also be discussed as well as the effectiveness of these disposals in addressing the offending behaviour. The purpose of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is to tackle crime and disorder as well as create safer communities. Underlying themes include, public bodies to consider the crime and disorder implications of all their decisions, local authorities to work in partnership with the community to cut crime rates and the aim of the youth justice system to reduce offending and take quick action. Intervention should also tackle the particular factors of an individuals (personal, family social or educational) and punishment proportionate to the seriousness and persistence of the offence. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) introduced a new mandatory sentencing disposal - the referral order for 10-17 yr olds pleading guilty for the first time. Part 2 of the Act makes provision for witnesses who find giving evidence in proceedings difficult. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and its codes of practice provide the police with powers they need to combat crime. In doing this it
The given quotation immediately summons in my mind the picture of a suspect on the street or at the police station or ana ccused before a court, whether he will be treated equally by the neutral legal factors, if he is a member of the black community. ...
ANSWER TO THE Q: NO: 2 INTRODUCTION The given quotation immediately summons in my mind the picture of a suspect on the street or at the police station or an accused before a court, whether he will be treated equally by the neutral legal factors, if he is a member of the black community. It was examined and expressed for a number of years by various researchers in this field that black people are more likely to become entangled with the web of criminal justice than white people1. In order to discuss, the quotation will be divided into two parts. First, it will be examined, whether the evidences show that law enforcement really targets black people. In the second part, it will be considered whether such targeting has happened because of bias or impartial application of criteria that work to the disadvantage of black people TARGETING THE BLACK PEOPLE There was a considerable body of research on race and criminal justice, which suggested that the police do target some ethnic minority groups and that this may have the effect of drawing them in through the 'gates' of the criminal justice system disproportionately either to their numbers in the population or to their involvement in crime. Also a wide public perception is that certain groups were being treated unfairly by the police and the criminal courts. In constructing the answer it will be sought to build up a picture of the
In what ways, if any, do female offenders warrant special consideration by the Criminal Justice System.
SUBJECT : PRISONS AND SOCIETY PART 2 YEAR 3 In what ways, if any, do female offenders warrant special consideration by the Criminal Justice System. Historically female criminality has been subject to stereotyping by the Criminal Justice System (CJS), in that assumptions of female behaviour influence the decisions made by the individual stages of the CJS. Women are observed to be pure, passive and submissive, but also deceptive, emotional and jealous (Morris 1987). Heidensohn (1989) argues that recorded crime is overwhelmingly linked to sex, in that crimes are mainly committed by young male adults. Farrington 1981 in Morris 1987) using Home Office statistics estimated that 12% of men and only 2% of women were likely to be convicted of an offence by the age of seventeen. It was also calculated that 44% of men and only15% of women were likely to be convicted of offences during their lives (Farrington 1981 cited in Morris 1987). These gender differences are also reflected in sentencing patterns for females. At any one time the number of women in prison amount to very little, varying from 1,200 to 1,500. The ratio of women in prison compared to men is thirty males for every one female (cited in Home Office 1990,1992 in pg. 1010 Heidensohn 1994). In England and Wales in the 1980's, offending rates per 100,000 of population were always over 1,000 for males but under 500 for
Restorative justice, victims' rights and the future.
Restorative justice, victims' rights and the future. By Kate Akester of Justice. First published in LAG. Restorative justice has become mainstream following the establishment of youth offender panels last year under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. It is no longer just another possible option available in some places at various points in the criminal justice process. However, there is no consensus over a definition. Tony Marshall defines restorative justice as 'a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future'. More recent Home Office research comments on the 'variability and changeability' of approaches in seven different schemes; the aims of practitioners vary and there is widespread uncertainty as to what the term means, both in theory and practice. There has been considerable enthusiasm about exploring the possibilities of victim/offender contact - which may result in young people seeing the consequences of their actions, accepting responsibility for them, and being given assistance to reintegrate into society. Thames Valley Police has been organising 'conferences' to promote these ends for some years. Now, under the 1999 Act, the youth offender panels, consisting of one member of the local Youth Offending Team (YOT) together with two
![case analysis: Brown (Uriah) v The Queen [2006] 1 AC 1](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/859566/listing/859566_1.jpg)
case analysis: Brown (Uriah) v The Queen [2006] 1 AC 1
Manslaughter·Criminal Procedure·Direction Clarifying how the jury should be directed in a motor manslaughter cases in the countries which causing death by reckless driving has not been abolished: Brown (Uriah) v The Queen [2006] 1 AC 1 Introduction Brown (Uriah) v The Queen1 was a case appealed from the Jamaica Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, and the Privy Council clarified a significant legal issue that how the jury should be directed in motor manslaughter cases in the countries which causing death by reckless driving has not been abolished in its judgment. Privy Council faced two arguments: (1) In trials of motor manslaughter cases in some jurisdictions, in which causing death by reckless driving is still a statutory offence and has not yet been abolished, such as Jamaica, the jury should be directed under the principles in R v Lawrence (Stephen)2 decided by the House of Lords. (2) The statutory offence causing death by reckless driving ought to be left to the jury as an alternative of manslaughter in direction given by judge even if causing death by dangerous driving has been left. Both of the arguments were accepted, and it was held that the direction given by the trial judge was misleading since he failed to pay any attention to the defendant's state of mind, which is an essential element of the formulation given in Lawrence, and ignored
Mens Rea. The different types of mens rea are those of intention, recklessness, and negligence.
22nd October, 2012 Criminal Law “To intend a result is to aim to produce it and to be reckless as to a result is to foresee it”. Is that an accurate summary of the law? Mens rea is the mental fault element of a crime, which creates culpability when it coincides the actus reus of the same crime. Mens rea or the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the crime is essential for his being held criminally liable and no act of the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the consequences it may cause, can be punishable if there is a lack of this mental element. This ensures that only those who are truly considered blameworthy get convicted. The different types of mens rea are those of intention, recklessness, and negligence. Criminal law tends to define intention and recklessness by borrowing their English dictionary meanings, simply of aim or purpose for the former and ‘disregard for the consequences of an action’ for the latter. In this generally broad sense, the law may be summarised to find that to intend a result is to aim to produce it and to be reckless as to a result is to foresee it. However, application of this broad law is subject to precedents with widely differing circumstances and conclusions, thereby disallowing the laying down of concrete principles. A rigid definition of the law in this context is often even considered counter-productive and
Gender Reassignment
GENDER REASSIGNMENT: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON RAPE. BY: MOHAMAD ISMAIL BIN HJ. MOHD. YUNUS In England, prior to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the law of rape was entirely gender-delineated. Consequently it is noted that a biological male who underwent gender reassignment surgery is a male for the purposes of the criminal law, and thus could not be the victim of the offence of rape. In the celebrated English case of Corbett v. Corbett1, the petitioner, Arthur Cameron Corbett, prayed for a declaration that a ceremony of marriage which took place between himself and the respondent, then known as April Ashley, was null and void and of no effect, because the respondent, at the time of the ceremony, was a person of the male sex. It was common ground that the respondent had been registered at birth as a male and prior to the purported marriage had undergone an operation for the removal of the testicles, most of the scrotum and the construction of an artificial vagina. Since that operation the respondent had lived as a woman. In granting the petitioner a decree of nullity, Ormrod J. observed that marriage is essentially a relationship between man and woman, and that to determine the sex for the purposes of marriage the law should adopt biological criteria, that is chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests and if all three were congruent, determine sex accordingly,
