Reflection on Courtroom 302 The judicial system offers an intricate web of interrelated elements that influence the quest for justice. Every facet provides a distinct viewpoint on the pursuit of justice and equity, from the complex dynamics of jury deliberations to the philosophical underpinnings of sentencing procedures. By looking at various situations and cases, this research seeks to clarify these intricacies and give light to the potential and difficulties present in the legal field. The tension between utilitarian ideals and retributive justice is at the heart of the legal system. It guides the actions of decision-makers and lawyers and influences the sentencing procedures that balance rehabilitation with accountability. The human side …show more content…
A judge named Locallo is a good example of someone who believes in retributive justice, which means that punishment should be proportional to the crime committed and the offender should be held morally responsible. Judge Locallo's approach is based on the idea of giving dessert to the offender. In a case involving Larry Bates, Judge Locallo demonstrated his commitment to retributive justice by considering the underlying causes of the offense, such as addiction, while holding the offender accountable for his actions. The judge's decision to release Bates under strict conditions to address his addiction demonstrated his belief in rehabilitating offenders while also punishing them for their …show more content…
Courtroom 302 illustrates this subjective character of justice, as evidenced by the jurors' varied points of view during Bett's trial. It is important to emphasize the complex dynamics at work during jury deliberations because the case's outcome may depend on how each juror interprets the evidence and moral considerations. Moreover, by demonstrating the discretion juries have in navigating moral dilemmas and interpreting the law in actual cases, the documentary "In the Jury Room" provides intriguing insights into these challenges. These examples show how human psychology has a significant impact on juries' decision-making processes and highlight the necessity for a greater comprehension of the variables influencing jurors' perceptions and decisions. As evidenced by the diverse perspectives of the jurors during Bett's trial and the subjective character of justice depicted in Courtroom 302, the pursuit of justice investigates the intersection of human psychology and legal concepts during jury deliberations. Comprehending the intricate dynamics that arise during jury deliberations is crucial, since the verdict of a case may hinge on the individual juror's interpretation of the facts and ethical issues. "In the Jury Room" is a documentary that offers fascinating insights into the difficulties juries encounter when interpreting the law and resolving
The symbol of the Canadian judicial system is the balanced scales of justice. When a wrongful act is committed, the scales of justice are greatly misplaced and require a solution to counterbalance the crime and restore balance. Additionally, the scales represent the idea that law should be viewed objectively and the determination of innocence should be made without bias. The Canadian criminal justice system encapsulates the idea of the scale of justice, to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law. One of the most important aspects of this system is that an individual charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system has two prevailing methods involved in the process of dealing with crime: Retributive and restorative justice. This paper will analyze aspects of retributive justice and restorative justice, with reference to their respective philosophies, for the purpose of finding which is more effective at achieving justice and maintaining balance.
As the jury’s deliberation session commences, the jurors have the privilege of familiarizing with one another. In their conversation, the audience cannot help but recognize the informal anonymity in their feeling that the defendant is guilty of his accused crime. However, before during these moments, juror 2 makes it clear that he has never been in jury before, while juror 3 confesses that he was asleep during the court session. Even more interesting, juror 7 makes it clear that he is in a hurry to attend a ball game, and as such, the jury ought to finalize their general reaction from the court sessions to a guilty verdict. When the jurors ultimately take their positions around the jury table, jury 4 suggests that the jurors should take a preliminary vote, as the jury customs dictates.
As agents of justice and philanthropists of duty one must evaluate the criminal justice system and its approaches to the solution of crime to determine what is good, appropriate, and what will reduce recidivism. As a western society the United States has changed and adapted its judicial system in hopes of conforming to our changing society and the increase in criminal behavior. Through these adaptations emerged a system within criminal justice that changes the focus of rehabilitation of the offender to not only include imprisonment, but to include reconciliation with the victims and the community that the offender harmed. The restorative justice approach takes a look at the crime, the criminal, and the offended; with hopes for healing and justice
Restorative Justice is a system centred on reparative aspects rather than only punitive ones. Indeed, the crime should be fixed, not just punished. It has become progressively more popular over the years and its apparition can be explained from the failures of the traditional models of criminal justice. The actual criminal justice system has more than proved the problems it raises and its inefficiency in a number of matters: “We have never resolved the equation of punishment and retribution on one side and reformation on the other. I seriously doubt we ever will” . Therefore a balance between a rehabilitating system and a punitive system need to be struck, a system which would have both fairness in punishment and effectiveness in stopping reoffending.
The death penalty remains a very controversial and highly criticized topic. Both sides argue vehemently from many different angles about the constitutionality, morality, and justice of the death penalty; but, both sides know that there must be some form of punishment for the violent criminals who commit murder. The conflict arises with the question, “what punishment is fair for a convicted murderer?”
They have to take into account things like the quality of the evidence, possible sentencing guidelines, and the chance of a favorable judgment. This realization emphasizes how crucial knowledgeable legal counsel is for negotiating the complexity of plea deals and making sure the rights of defendants are upheld. Additionally, the chapter included insightful information on the tactics used during jury selection, a crucial stage of the legal process. I gained knowledge about the several aspects that lawyers take into account when choosing jurors, such as personal convictions, prior events that might affect how they see the case, and demographic traits. While trying to confront jurors who could be biased or inclined to favor the other side, attorneys look for jurors who are unbiased, understanding, and sympathetic to their client's point of view.
Punishments are an effective method for not only parents and children, but those who do wrong in the eyes of the law. This summary and analysis of the arguments supporters of restorative justice use to convince society of restorative justice’s advantages over incarceration and other punishments, describing which approach is the better model for a system of corrections. In fact, restorative justice system response to wrongdoing emphasizes healing the wounds of victims, offenders, and communities caused or revealed by crime (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2014, p.62). The main goal here is to establish a form of boundaries when it comes to the level and extent of punishment.
Although some may find it inconvenient upon receiving a summons for jury duty, being part of it is an important role that civilians get to experience as it is one of the foundations that makes up our justice system. This civic duty seems like an ordinary and tedious task; however, when people are apart of the jury, they aren’t an individual anymore, they’re part of the court. Their duty is to be earnest and filled with integrity to make the most just decision when it comes to determining whether an accused is guilty or innocent. In the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, there are two prominent types of characters that respond to facing this task, those who understand the significant role of being a juror, and those who don’t. Rose makes this contrast apparent by showcasing some jurors as being unjust by bringing their own
The word Justice means the quality of being impartial, fair, and just (Pollock, 2017, p.56). The concept of justice helps to determine guilt and dispense punishment for criminal violation. There are two components of corrective justice substantive justice and procedural justice. Substantive justice is how fair punishment is determined. Procedural justice is the steps taken before administering punishment. The purpose of this paper is to discuss a situation and determining the sentence of the juvenile defendant by applying retributive justice, utilitarian justice, or restorative justice.
In the United States court of law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The people tasked with determining which of the two categories a defendant falls under is a jury of his or her peers. In Reginald Rose’s thrilling play, 12 Angry Men, the many aspects of America's jury system are closely examined revealing not only flaws but merits as well. The diverse personalities and backgrounds of the different jurors illustrate a picture of the jury room in vivid detail and reveal to the reader that past the apparent conflict is a system that works and has proven efficient for many decades. The contrasting viewpoints, dissimilar backgrounds, and random selection of the jury system together compliments and further proves its effectiveness. As a result, today's jury system may be flawed but the ways it benefits people on trial outweighs the negative as proven in 12 Angry Men.
For my observation paper, I chose to write about my visit to the Mesa County District Court, which is located at 125 N Spruce St in Grand Junction. The date of my visit was June 12th and I was there from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. This paper is based off my own court appearance. The good thing, I had a lawyer and he did all the work, and I sat there and observed everything.
What is retributive justice? It is a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than rehabilitation. According to our notes, it is the oldest sense of the word justice. Others think of it as “an eye for an eye” or “getting even”. Justice should be more than getting even for crimes and offenses. Retributive justifications of punishments have largely endured the test of time.
videotaping of a real life jury as seen in a small criminal courtroom. The case
The United States has historically promoted the rights of man and liberty. The sentencing of an innocent person not only displays the inefficiency of a government’s judicial system to uphold these values, but also the irreversible damage done to the individual.
While sitting on a panel at the Third Circuit Judicial Conference in 2014, I had the opportunity to speak about my own experiences and root causes that led to my criminal past, opening the hearts and minds of many prosecutors and judges in the audience. Hence, the following one on one conversations about the events leading up to my mistakes, were met with compassion and understanding instead of judgment and bias. Maintaining the status quo might provide a sense of stability in the short term, but it fails to address the root causes of systemic inequities and undermines long-term efforts to promote fairness and justice for all. While it's understandable to be cautious about making substantial changes to the justice system, sticking with the status quo is not a viable solution. By turning a blind eye to the systemic injustices and inefficiencies that plague the current system, we perpetuate a cycle of harm and undermine the principles of justice and fairness.