Criminal Justice System

Gangs have been a growing issue across the United States for many decades now. Youth gang violence may have started around the ‘50s, but did not become a serious issue until the ‘80s and from there went through a downward spiral in some cities like downtown Los Angeles, which was where the notorious Bloods and Crips gangs both started. First, let’s simply define a gang as a group of people, mostly men ranging for ages 14-30, who claim territory and use it to make money for themselves and their neighborhood through illegal activities such as trafficking drugs and weapons. There are many reasons and components that are factored in when conducting research to hypothesize “why do people join gangs?” That is why it is necessary to compare and contrast all the social, biological, psychological, developmental, and substance abuse aspects and relate it to joining a gang. It is also important to touch base on the differences between males and females that join gangs, such as power differentials, social learning differences and social stratification differences.

Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how

the implementation of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and the introduction of the Sentencing Council as the single statutory body in charge of issuing guidelines on sentencing. As a result, courts are now required by statute to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines relevant to the offenders case unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The Sentencing Council is in the process of producing sentencing guidelines for a range of offences with the intention of targeting recidivism and creating greater consistency in sentencing while still allowing for a degree of discretion (amongst other aims), but for the purpose of this essay we will examine only the Definitive

Another critical area of sentencing and punishment are the Statutory (Federal) Guidelines for sentencing which are contained in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Judiciary powers refer to this legislation when deciding on an offender’s prison sentence. It contains the directive of ‘minimum mandatory sentencing’; an automatic sentence that must be imposed by the judicial officer for particular offences, a statutory guideline which overrules Judicial rule and can potentially jeopardises a judge's discretion and ability to consider mitigating factors.

Section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 outlines the official purposes of sentencing:

Sentencing theories are reflected in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (PSA) which is to be followed by judges when handing down a sentence. S9 (1) (a) – (f) of the PSA is an exhaustive list of all the purposes a sentence can be imposed for. General deterrence is included as one of the purposes of sentencing under s9 (1) (c) PSA: (c) to discourage the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. Despite being included as a purpose of sentencing in Australia, there has been much discussion as to the use of general deterrence as a purpose of sentencing. In Report Number 44 of 1998 the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that general deterrence should not be a goal or objectives of sentencing. The ALRC were of the view that it is unfair to increase an offender’s penalty to set an example and that the only relevant

The required fines could be “Tariff fines” which according to FAMM (2011), “Tariff fines are a set amount applied to every offender when a particular crime is committed like $500 for driving while intoxicated, regardless of the offender’s income level or ability to pay (p.3).” While these tariff fines are great punishments for committing the crime they are not always effective. The rich can afford these fines with no real burden, while the poor struggle more to pay the fines causing it to be more of a punishment. In addition to tariff fines the offender could have to pay restitution, this could be paid to the victim, the victim’s family, the county or the owner of whatever was harmed. For instance, if the offender burned down a church the church would receive restitution to rebuild their church, or if the offender caused an accident they would pay restitution to the victim which would include their medical costs and car

This report will highlight research and explain the law and how it is applied to the age of Criminal Responsibility. It will then evaluate whether the law is successfully achieving fair and just outcomes for the stake holders involved and make appropriate recommendations for change.

Adding to this the statutory maximum for the summary convictions in which is in England, the boundary of the statutory maximum has been increased about £5,000 to a limitless account. However, the magistrates observe cases systematically before a decision can be made for the amount of fine to be paid. In contrast in Scotland only £10,000 is the amount to be paid with the statutory maximum fine for the Summary convictions.

The system legitimised by welfare is always likely to come under attack from those seeking more a punitive and retributive response. Over the 1950s and 1960s local authority care provided attendance centres for the neglected and detention centres established by the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, ‘retraining’ offenders through punitive labour brought confusion concerning the control and treatment of juveniles.

Serious crimes which include homicide, burglary and rape have raised questions to whether the younger offenders ought to face extreme punishment or the everyday punitive measures in the juvenile courts. Many could decide on the juveniles given harsh punishment which will discourage other juveniles from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to those precise offenders. However, outcomes from preceding research suggest such punitive measures have ben neither successful nor morally suited. As an alternative, the solutions carried out have unfairly handled the youths and compromised the society popularity (Kristin).

Fines are known to be one of the “oldest” form of sentences. Also, the most useful sanctions used to handle minor offenses. When handling serious offenses such as drug offences, tax evasion, and embezzlement, they are implemented along with other types of sanctions. Often some situations lead to imprisonment. “The Supreme Court has considered constitutional questions in connection with fines in a few instances” (363). In the court case Williams v. Illinois (1970), Williams received a sentence of up to one year behind bars. Also, he received a $500 fine for a petty theft charge. Under the state's law he was to remain behind bars and work until he payed of the fine ($5 a day). This meant that his jail sentence would be extended to 100 days to

Section 357, CrPC, empowers a criminal court imposing a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which 'fine ' forms a part at in its discretion inter alia, to order payment of compensation, out of the 'fine ' recovered, to a person for any 'loss or injury ' caused to him by the offence. Sub-section (1) of Section 357 empowers a criminal Court to appropriate the whole or any portion of the fine recovered for the

Which are fast to administer and can create more money for the system. Bentham has supported this argument by stating that they cost zero to administer. Raine and Dunstan have argued that fines are popular with public policy-makers because of this cheapness in administration. This is why, Raine and Dunstan argues that fines have continued to be a popular mode of sentencing. They also argue that this is supported by the Treasury because fines raise revenue for the ‘public purse’. The Carter Review in 2003 was also of this opinion as a reason why there should be an increased use of fines. Bentham saw money sanction as an ideal liberal form of punishment since they do not have any physical coercion. Bentham also argues that fines are ideal since they are completely reversible if an injustice occurs. However, although saving costs is a clear aim of any state, it could be conflicted with the counter argument that long term cost effectiveness should be prefered. Yes, fines offer a short term cost effective solution but there long term cost can be much more. Consider, if fines result in financial hardship and possible reoffending as I have previously mentioned. This would cost the state much more. In addition to their lack of rehabilitation which can also result in cost long

As less serious crimes’ sentences do not have minimum sentences prescribed the courts can easily use their discretion in deciding on an appropriate punishment for cases involving less serious crimes. The goal of sentencing should be to prevent future offences, in the most beneficial and least harmful way possible. They can take into consideration two main aspects: the seriousness of the offence and the vulnerability and power differences between the victim and the offender. These are crimes where the victim would benefit more from action that would allow the victim to be compensated than just know that the offender is being punished. In S v Shilubane (2008) the offender was originally sentenced to nine months in prison due to the theft of seven fowls, but at review the sentence was set aside and replaced with a suspended sentence that was “in line with the new philosophy on restorative justice…” (2008 (1) SACR p297 4).