Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of Courts in the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The law balances the rights of victims, offenders and society to a certain extent in the criminal trial process. Mechanisms such as the use of evidence and witnesses, charge negotiations and juries are ways in which the legal system attempts to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society in the criminal trial process. Whilst they are effective in balancing rights, there are limitations to these mechanisms such as false witness statements, pressure to agree with charge negotiations and issues of bias with juries. The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and …show more content…
However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of domestic violence to record their statements as their evidence instead of giving oral evidence in court. It also allows police to use body-mounted cameras when entering domestic violence scenes and record the situation to be used as evidence in court. Victims of sexual assault also have the right to have special arrangements made for them when they are giving evidence. Although the law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims, issues have risen regarding the effects of social media on court evidence and witness statements. According to an ABC News article (23 January 2013), social media is said to be “tainting evidence.” Tony Kerin, president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, stated that “social media is …show more content…
It is a controversial strategy where the offender negotiates with the prosecutor and agrees to plead guilty to a charge in favour of a lesser charge. Charge negotiations are effective to a certain extent in balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society. It is effective for all parties in terms of resource efficiency. It is also effective in protecting the rights of society as it increases criminal convictions. Whilst charge negotiations lessen the sentence for the offender, it does not necessarily balance their rights as it puts pressure on them to plead guilty, which contravenes their right to a trial. They are also ineffective in balancing the rights of victims and society as crimes may go unpunished or inadequately punished. For example, in the R v Loveridge [2013] case, Kieran Loveridge was sentenced to only four years after pleading guilty to manslaughter as well as other common assault charges. This caused an outrage amongst Thomas Kelly’s family and the public (The Australian, 9 November 2013). Victims may also feel pressured to accept a charge negotiation by the prosecution, which violates their individual rights and their rights to a trial. In the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘NSW Liberals urge plea bargain review’, four individuals pleaded guilty to a downgraded charge of indecent assault after originally being charged to four
Plea bargaining precludes justice from being achieved, where the consent to less severe sentences are given in favour of time and money. The case of R v Rogerson and McNamara, demonstrates the advantages of hiring highly trained legal personnel, which inevitably contributed to their lesser sentence. Thus, making it more difficult for offenders to be convicted.
Justice can be achieved through various processes and principles if applied correctly, similarly justice can also be denied through these same processes and principles. This is exemplified through the Andrew Mallard case (M v The Queen 2005 HCA 68), and the missing persons case of Kieffen Raggett (2007) which shows how the incorrect application of processes like police investigations and coronial inquests can lead to justice being denied. Furthermore, legal principles such as; the rights of the accused and victims, are instrumental in achieving justice as shown through the application of these principles within these cases. These processes and principles can fail due to prejudged conclusions, police corruption, human error and cultural barriers
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
...instead of 25 years if they pleaded guilty. (Wan 37) In addition, money can become a reason for defense attorney to encourage pleading guilty. Private defense attorney may want to spend more effort in cases where they have more possibility of winning and thus getting more money, and public defenders find pleading guilty an effective way to move through cases quicker. (Mohr 6) For prosecutors, “guilty pleas avoided ‘onerous and protracted’ trials whose outcomes – ‘losing’ or ‘having to oppose an appeal to the higher courts’ – were both undesirable.” (Smith 134) Finally for judges, plea bargain reduces their caseload, and elevates their reputation indirectly because accepting a plea bargaining also includes waiver of appeal to higher courts. (Mohr 6)
The due process model points out the human error factor in evidence gathering and places emphasis on the adversarial trial process by which the prosecution has to prove the accused party is guilty (Aviram, 2011). This due process model is seen in many popular culture television shows in America today like Law & Order and CSI, however it is not an accurate representation of the criminal justice system as a whole. Bargaining, or making a plea deal with the prosecution is a trait emphasized in the crime control model but it is also common practice in the American criminal justice system (Aviram, 2011). While the due process model has several positive aspects it seems to work too well in the United States; as of 2008 the U.S. had 2.3 million people incarcerated which indicates the due process model is working as described but it is also unprepared to account for the social consequences of the existing prison system that is perpetuated by guilty verdicts ("Criminal Justice Fact Sheet", 2016). The due process model, although slower, gives more rights to the defendant and ensures the legal system works toward a resolution in the fairest way possible. Unlike the crime control model, due process works and works without infringing upon the constitution rights of the
Sentence bargaining sometimes occurs in high profile cases where the prosecutor does not want to reduce the charges against the defendant, usually for fear of how the newspapers will react. A sentence bargain may allow the prosecutor to obtain a conviction to the most serious charge, while assuring the defendant of an a...
Pretrial diversion process is when defendants charged with non-serious offenses are diverted in lieu of prosecution, if they agree to complete certain requirements such as community services, enrollment in rehabilitation program, conditional supervision. The process give first time offenders a second chance at having a clean criminal record. The prosecutor’s office serve as a gateway as to which defendants are eligible for pretrial diversion process. Defendants are evaluate on certain factors to determine if the likelihood of future criminal behavior or noncompliance.
The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
One could wonder why plea bargains are even made. One reason would be that criminal courts are becoming clogged and overcrowded. Going through the proper procedure and processes that we are granted takes time. Trials can take anywhere from days to...
Therefore, the argument supports the idea of plea-bargaining hurting the justice system. The thinking behind this is “since both the defense and prosecution parties depend on their power to negotiate a deal, instead of winning a trial, the justice system might suffer, ” (15 Serious Advantages and Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining, n.d.). Since plea-bargain relies on a mutual agreement, defendants plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence, which means that theoretically the system built on the thought of “ let the punishment fit the crime,” sacrifices punishment in exchange for less trials throughout the year. Although plea-bargaining might offer leeway for some offenders, the criticism fails to consider that plea-bargaining usually reduces sentences, while not completely eliminating sentences. Evidently, the practice still holds citizens accountable for their actions, while simultaneously punishing them. Although, in theory, plea-bargaining could potentially hinder the justice system and might offer leeway to criminals, in practice it helps the courts to operate in a more efficient manner. Given these points, the practice may have its deficiencies, however, the practice has space to for change and thus should removed because the justice system relies on plea-bargaining in order to
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,