Discretionary Power Of Offenders: A Case Study

The Intake process is the ‘first screening of youth where important decisions are made about their further involvement in the system’ (167). The intake role is performed by an intake officer, whose duty is to decide which juvenile cases should be prosecuted. The intake officer has the options to either release the juvenile with no charge, hold the juvenile until a parent or guardian can pick them up and show up for a court date, release the juvenile to a community service area, hold them in custody, held under supervision, or to even transfer the juvenile’s case to a criminal court. While the intake officer has a lot of authority, I do not believe they have too much authority or abuse their power. According to the textbook, most cases are referred to a juvenile court with over 83% of the cases going to a juvenile court rather than a

Within the criminal justice system, officials abuse their power. The officials of the justice system have a duty to protect and perform their duties with unbiased decision making. The abuse of power jeopardizes people’s lives who are not able to sustain oneself and their families. Some people do not understand that poorer people find themselves in jail more and once a person is released, that person is subjected to return to jail for the amount of money owed to the state. There are many obstacles for the poor, especially those of color. People of color are treated unfairly in the justice system, from the arrest, the sentencing, and the release. The criminal justice system is supposed to be just but that is not the case. The criminal justice system allows for the police, public defenders, and judges to bend the laws and not be punished for their actions or that apologizes can fix the wrong that has been done. This paper will discuss the abuse of power from the justice system and the solutions to rectify the damages.

The United States is less the 5% of the world population but has almost 25% of the world’s prison population (Coates, 2015; Waldman, 2016). In the last 40 years, the number of American civilians imprisoned by the United States has increased 500%. (Mauer, 2011). However, this explosion in incarceration rates has not been evenly distributed throughout the American population (Waldman, 2016). While one in seventeen White men will be imprisoned in their lifetime, one in sixteen Latino men will face this fate and for Black men, the number is one in three (Mauer,2011). Neither the racial disparity in incarceration nor its scale was accidental (Coates, 2015). The mass incarceration of Black men in the United States was a direct result of the “War

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

This essay will argue that the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales doesn’t provide justice for all. In particular, the institutionally racist nature of the police and courts towards Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups (BAME) will be addressed. The ‘Lammy Review’ has been instrumental in outlining the disproportionate representation of BAME groups within the CJS. In a letter addressed to the Prime minister, David Lammy reports the findings from his review. 51% of UK-born individuals from BAME backgrounds believe that the CJS discriminates against certain groups and individuals (Lammy,2016). In comparison, only 35% of the white population born in the UK believe the same statement (Lammy, 2016). Thus, choosing to focus on the

The New South Wales (NSW) criminal justice system has been separated into “two tiers of justice”. The two tiers of justice involve the separation of lower and higher courts, where the lower courts are comprised of Local courts and the higher courts are comprised of District and Supreme courts. The local courts role lies mainly in exercising summary jurisdiction whereas more serious indictable offences are dealt with in higher courts. However, there is more than just a jurisdictional divide and there are other aspects that significantly distinguish the lower courts from the higher courts.

Discretion is the eminence of once behavior or the way of speaking in order to avoid any offensive occurrence or speaking up any private issues or information in public. It is the self-determination for someone to choose or think what should be better to be done in particular circumstances. Especially for a judge, a public official or other private party has the authority to make decisions on any legal matters or other big official subjects. Thus, a person who is authorized with the power of discretion often thinks about how to apply the given supremacy.

The laws were strategically designed to disproportionately affect or communities. For example, before the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, the possession and selling of crack cocaine (used predominantly in black communities) was harsher than possessing and selling powdered cocaine (used predominantly in other communities), even though data proved that both drugs had the same adverse effects on their consumers. It's unfortunate that as a result of certain illegal drugs now having a devastating impact on other communities, many are calling for sympathy and allocation of funds towards treatment, education, and prevention, but our community was faced with a frivolous "war on drugs"

More and more people in Britain are being sentenced to jail time: this is a fact. In 2004, there are currently over eighty thousand inmates.[1] (Peter Reydt, 2004 / Scottish Executive, 2003) Crime is on the increase but our prisons are already overcrowded. Consequently, new prisons will be required to accommodate prisoners. Where will the money come from to pay for the construction of new prisons?

The administration of criminal justice and the operation of criminal process play an important role in our ever-changing society. The current structure of the New South Wales criminal justice system, as described by leading critic Doreen McBarnet as the ‘two tiers of justice’, has attracted many critiques namely the ideology of triviality, summary offence punishment and other legal notions such as technocratic justice. I have applied the above concepts during the course of my observation to Local, District and Supreme Courts of New South Wales in April 2016. The following report will assess the validity of the above concepts at a practical level in light with my observation and research, drawing intrinsic links between two tiers of justice and technocratic justice, and concluding with the two tiers of justice as a necessary framework in our modern criminal justice system.

I feel like the criminal justice in United States is too lenient but on the other hand too harsh. In today's society the justice department is too worried about petty crimes such selling drugs, trespassing, and theft. They would rather lock people up in prison for petty crimes instead of rapist, murders, kidnappers and letting these types of people roam free. Then the justice department is so corrupt it is hard to find someone you can actually trust. I feel like the reason victims or witness do not come forward about a crime is because they feel like the justice department is going to sweep it under the rug. Another reason is the person the hurt them threaten them not to say anything and they feel like the only way out is through suicide. Then

Are judges to lenient with punishment? Yes, and that is the main reason for an increase rate in recidivism worldwide. As the judge is who comes up with all the punishments, and it is based off the fourteenth amendment. The judge’s main goal is to not to punish, but to treat the fugitive for the crime he/she committed. About three quarters (76.6%) of the released prisoners have been rearrested in less than five years, and more than half of those prisoners (56.7%) were rearrested in less than a year. Research shows that imprisonment gives a little deterrent on the population. For deterrent to be successful the prison should own up and realize his/her own consequences and decide if the benefits outweigh the costs. Some programs that show to much aggression, or programs that try to scare offenders from offending again have be ineffective of rearrests. Instead, sentences that aim to address the underlying causes of crime, such as poverty, poor education, mental illness or drug abuse, are known to be more effective at preventing offending.

Two bills were filed by legislator that were intended to help ex-offenders. There are many obstacles that hinders ex-criminals from moving forwarding in life once they have served their time or finished probation. Many are looked upon by society as animals who cannot coexist with the rest of the population. Most offenders feel that they aren’t given another fair chance at living a normal life, so some revert back to criminal activity. Resources are limited for them based on the many restrictions imposed on them by the law.

I equate judicial discretion to being a “double-edged sword”, so to speak. Judges, like the rest of the population, are human and have flaws. They are many times elected to their positions and are holding to their constituent base, especially in an election year. If one judge is conservative in nature, he/she may rule on the higher end of the sentencing scale as opposed to a more liberal judge.

Criminal Justice in general terms refers to the agencies of government charged with enforcing law, adjudicating crime, and correcting criminal conduct in the society. The criminal justice system is essentially an instrument of social control used by the government. Society considers some behaviors so dangerous and destructive that it either tries to strictly control their occurrence or outlaws them outright. It is therefore, the job of the agencies of justice to prevent these behaviors by apprehending and punishing transgressors or deterring their future occurrence.