Criminal Law Essay

The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.

Do Queensland’s sentencing laws focus too heavily on punishment, rather than rehabilitation, of drug offenders?

At first glance, creating exemptions from the law seems like a deceptively simple choice, something that could be considered obtuse. However, this case is a profound contradiction of that as it deals with something commonly viewed as immoral and indeed illegal by the law: the use of hard drugs and abuse of narcotics. Since this case deals only with drug use in places such as the Insite clinic, the scope of this essay is limited to these boundaries as well. The case of the appellant deals with the potential risk to life and limitation of section seven of the charter and security of the person, by limiting resources per person searching for a way to better themselves physically and mentally through either abstinence or controlled use of drugs.

There are three significant issues concerning law enforcement, namely enacting the law, police discretion, and assessment of criminal behavior. Different entities create and enact laws that are specific for the societies those laws represent.

This essay is going to discuss the causes of crime and evaluate the theories of criminalisation using one theory for each of the following themes. The themes are labelling and deviant identity of criminalisation, theory of delinquency and criminalisation, theory of political economy and criminalisation, and finally radical theory of criminalisation. This essay will also show some of the weaknesses of each of the theories used for these themes.

As mentioned before, the medicalization of many diseases in America has lead to the introduction of novel prescription medications, jobs, and explanations for strange behaviors. Using the example of ADD, many pharmaceutical companies revenues increased due to the number of prescriptions prescribed for Adderall etc., not to mention physician’s income for prescribing each medication. Parents can now easily explain to teachers why their kid cannot pay close enough attention for long periods of time and have a quick fix for the exceptionally hyperactive child. These same concepts apply to the medicalization of addiction. Physicians, pharmaceutical companies, and rehab centers profit from the disease concept and the addict in withdrawal. Family and friends have an easier time accepting and explaining a medical condition instead of a loved one that has changed because of drug use. Also, the user themselves has many more resources in today’s society in comparison to being criminalized. Truthfully, only the user that does not seek or want treatment seems to not

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, drug use became a major concern for most Americans. As the War on Drugs and “Just Say No” campaign were being thrust into the spotlight by the government and media, the public became more aware of the scope of drug use and abuse in this country. The federal and states’ governments quickly responded by creating and implementing more harsh and punitive punishments for drug offenses. Most of these laws have either remained unchanged or become stricter in the years since then.

Just as the drug addict is responsible in this situation, Kevin is responsible as well. However, Kevin’s circumstances require lesser punishment than a different offender might need. The judge in Kevin’s case sentenced Kevin to twenty-six months in federal prison and twenty-five months of house arrest, which is less than the normal sentencing for similar crimes and, therefore, is

“Budd v. California, 385 U.S. 909 (1966).” The courts in this case were to decide whether persons suffering from the illness of alcoholism and exhibiting its symptoms or effects may be punished criminally. It was argued to constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” in conflict of the 8th Amendment. Currently the state may not inflict punishment for an illness, such as narcotic addiction. The principle is that the sick should be treated in hospitals rather than in prisons. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/385/909.html

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

As a major policy issue in the United States, the War on Drugs has been one of the most monumental failures on modern record. At a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of lives lost and many thousands of others ruined by untreated addiction or incarceration, America's policy orientation concerning drug laws is due for reconsideration. Indeed, the very philosophical orientation of the War on Drugs and of the current drug policy in the United States has been one of prosecution and imprisonment rather than one of decriminalization, treatment and rehabilitation. As our medical and scientific communities characterize addiction as a disease, the United States government continues to characterize this disease as a crime. And in doing so, it has created an unnecessary criminal class in the United States. The research, supplemental political cartoons and proposed research will set out to prove that stiffer drug laws will only have the impact of criminalizing countless drug addicts who might otherwise benefit substantially from rehabilitation and other treatment-based strategies. With a specific focus on the prohibition of marijuana even for medical use, and using the Toulmin model for putting forth and completing the argument, the research will set out to demonstrate the irrational

Is the State justified in restricting individuals’ access to drugs in order to prevent them from harming themselves?

The use of criminal restrictions for drug related crimes is not always an entirely punitive tool, and that penalties, or even the threat of them, often urge individuals struggling with addiction or substance abuse to get the treatment they might never seek or receive on their own, therefore increasing their opportunities to become productive members of society. In fact, more than one-third of all treatment referrals in the U.S.

The due process and crime control models, both created by Stanford University law professor Herbert Packer, represents two opposing method of principles functioning within criminal justice system. Although the models describe the important facets of the politics and practice of criminal justice, both have been criticized since presented by Packer in 1964. Presently both models are acknowledged as imperfect standards to explain the politics and law of criminal justice. The crime control ideal represents traditional principles, whereas the due process belief reflects moderate values; therefore generating conflict evident throughout the years. This paper discusses models, crime control and due process, and how each affects the criminal

or she did not nee to record it. If the Government do succeed in the