Court Issue Analysis

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

The criminal courts are responsible for determining the guilt or innocence of the person that is accused (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). As well as the courts are supposed to conclude the appropriate sentence while protecting their rights of the accused. The outcome that comes from the criminal courts is that the judgement is made to be fair, impartial and no political intrusion. Furthermore, the main focus of the courts is the find the fundamental problems, the interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration and the accountability to the community. (Griffiths, 2015, p.147). The court is supposing to keep the fairness and equality through the society.

Disputes between individuals can be resolved through mediation, tribunals and courts are sought depending on the complexity and nature of the dispute. Their effectiveness in achieving justice for and between individuals to varying extents will be assessed by their ability to uphold notions of fairness, equality, access, timeliness, enforceability and resource efficiency.

In a criminal investigation case, a victim is usually seeking justice for an offence against them personally. Victims can

It is cathartic for the victim as it allows them to articulate to the courts the impact and elaborate about the crime and the aftermath that followed

However, some people “believe that impact statements help the victim emotionally deal with the consequences of the crime” while “others believe that victims are more satisfied with the criminal justice system if they participate by being allowed to express their feelings” (Wallace & Roberson, 2016). According to Arrigo & Williams (2003), empirical research on the effect of victim impact statements has yet to produce definitive findings, but questions the usage of VIS, it states:

Before the victims movement, victims were ignored in most court systems by the professionals who process criminal cases. Victims were often seen as inconvenient. The victims rights movement has changed this unfair treatment. As time passed prosecutors’ offices in the most jurisdictions spend greater time than they did in the past giving notice to victims and consulting with them about decisions made in their case. The staff of the prosecutors offices and court systems have a responsibility of shepherding victims through the intricacies of the criminal justice system. For example, they send a notice providing information about the systems operation, and to help them secure protection of threatened victims who have suffered harm. Laws have changed to allow victims to be present throughout trials in a number of jurisdictions. Victims information or their voices are heard in court, mainly at sentencing, and at the time guilty pleas are received. All of this has had changed by giving the victim the respect and dignity they need, honoring their participation and

The second limitation of the state based justice is system is that victims are ignored and excluded from the formal criminal justice process (Daigle, 2012, p. 2). Under the state system the power is taken away from victims and placed into the hands of the state to ensure control over the criminal proceedings (Elliott, 2011, p. 65). Gromet and Darley (2006) argue that crime victims experience marginalization and frustration due to their exclusion in criminal proceedings (p. 396). They lack voice and an ability to

Victim offender mediation works to bring conflicting parties together to engage in speaking and hopefully negotiating a mutually agreeable solution (Dhami, 2016). Research shows that the most common outcome of victim offender mediation is an apology and is often expected by the parties (Dhami, 2016). Victims may decide on the mediation process to teach the offender a lesson in accountability. During the process, typically the offender is required to admit responsibility, acknowledge harm, express remorse, promise they will not do the offense again, and offer some form of restitution (Dhami, 2016).

When considering all the different types of victims out there, it is important to keep in mind the hardships they experienced to be labeled a victim. Although victims may come out the situation stronger, so victims still prefer to keep the crime to themselves. We like to think to ourselves, “Why would someone keep a crime amongst themselves?” A victim may have had a horrific past experience with law enforcement and feel they would be unsuccessful or not take the situation seriously. The victim may think the crime could be better handle personally, or that the crime is a personal matter. There is also the possibility of the victim feeling they

The second case Plata v. Davis the State a California realized that nothing has changed to better the medical care for prisoners that are staying in one of the thirty-three prisons in California (Specter, 2010). Both of these cases take a look at how the medical needs of prisoners are being neglected that results in injury and death (Specter, 2010). The reasoning for such neglect for the health of inmates comes down to the problem of overcrowding; severe overcrowding makes it impossible to keep a prison safe (Specter, 2010). The two California court cases were combined into one case Plata v. Schwarzenegger when taken to a three-judge court (Griffin III et al., 2013).

A person who experiences a traumatic event may be expected to experience a range of psychological effects, and, for many years, it was assumed that these psychological effects would be the same regardless of the cause of the injury. However, a growing body of knowledge is demonstrating that the impact of criminal victimization is different than the impact of other types of injuries because the intent element makes a difference in how the victim perceives the harm. In addition, victims of different crimes may respond differently to victimization. The psychological effects of victimization are important because they can help guide the criminal justice system for how to interact with victims and how to make the process more victim-appropriate. For example, victims of violent crimes, like sexual assaults, may benefit more from a victim-centered criminal justice approach than victims of other types of crimes (Resick, 1987). However, one of the problems with the traditional approach to victimology is that it has distinguished between different groups of victims. Emerging research suggest that victim needs are similar across the entire spectrum of crime, particularly the victims' needs for information about the crime and the needs for financial restitution to make them whole (ten Boom & Kuijpers, 2012).

To begin with, a victim is considered a child, adult, elder or disabled person who has suffered physical and emotional harm from their attacker, either by sexual assault, domestic violence, or used for human trafficking and so forth. When a victim is threatened by their abuser and put endangered, a representative represents the victim during a trial. With that in mind, during a criminal process, a crime victim, by all means, should be granted a decent input. On account of thirty years ago victims weren’t granted many rights during trial, such as the right to be informed or notified of the arrest and discharge of the aggressor, weren’t allowed to be present or attend the trial, and did have the right to make a statement and be heard during

This essay will provide a detailed examination of what Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is, particularly mediation, the various techniques of ADR, the advantages and disadvantages of ADR; and whether or not courts should have the authority to compel individuals into undertaking mediation or other forms of ADR. This essay argues against courts having the power to compel litigants into mediation but may be afforded powers to encourage parties to go through mediation at first instance. This essay will base its arguments on whether courts should compel civil litigants to follow the ADR route upon the perceived advantages of ADR and its success rate. The contention of this essay is not that mediation is inappropriately used to settle

Throughout the years there has been many definitions of mediation. Nevertheless one the most acceptable definition of mediation refers to this procedure as a “…process in which the participants, with the support of a mediator, identify issues, develop options, consider alternatives and make decisions about future actions…” . They also described mediators as the third party assisting the participants in reaching their decision. This process should form a part of the pre-trial civil litigation process as its advantages on the legal system and the community outweigh its disadvantages. The distinguishing models of mediation make it a suitable approach for all or most civil cases.