Justice And The Criminal Justice Part Of The Legal System

When Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was take from hospital to Sutherland police station he was interviewed/ interrogated like a suspect as the case had been turn to a sexual assault case and he was told that, “in the case of assault upon a wife, we always check out the husband’s story first”, (McLeod-Lindsay, A, 1984). Another role of investigators is to collect evidence. The police had bought a change of clothing for Alexander McLeod- Lindsay, so that they can take the clothes that he had wearing as evidence. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had now become the suspect of sexually assaulting and attempting to murder his wife and son. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was found guilty of attempted murder due to the circumstantial evidence that was bought forward before the jury such as the blood splatter that was on the wall and blood stains found on the accused Alexander McLeod-Lindsay’s clothing. Despite the fact that there was no form of direct evidence such as someone eye witnessing the incident or even to point the finger that Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had committed the attempted murder of his wife and 4 year old son Bruce, the jury still convicted him of committing the offence, all based on circumstantial evidence. This highlights that Alexander McLeod-Lindsay experienced miscarriage of justice due to the fact the jury based their decision on the circumstantial evidence of blood stains that were found on Alexander

Some of the ways I have forward my ideas about the issue of the justice system failing was by giving example to real life events that took place recently. The ideas that I wrote about pertain to the central idea and why the justice system might be still falling apart to this day. The police have the upperhand in lots of situation like for example many believe in the police reports or their story compared to a civilian.

Fritz Van Beelen was charged for the murder of a 15 year old girl, Deborah, on a beach in 1971. Fritz Van Beelen was prior convicted with two other offences of indecent exposure and the other for attempted rape before the death of Deborah. These convictions did not favour him in this new conviction and the Jury's decision, which was guilty. However, it wasn't just this. One year and nine months later, after Deborah's death, another trial took place with main evidence from Dr Colin Manock, all of which was very unreliable as well (Anon,

By recreating some of Australia’s most famous criminal cases, the director masterfully highlights that truth and lie are often determined by how evidence is constructed through the “mouths and minds of counsel”. Perhaps most crucially, The Diaries reveals how skilled litigators can exploit the credibility gap between “proven liars” and “credible witnesses” when constructing evidence. Yet the director acknowledges that the law recognises this potential for abuse, and mitigates it by confining the rules of evidence through the uniform Evidence Act (‘UEA’). Ultimately, The Diaries proves that the UEA alleviates Sheller JA’s concerns by limiting the ability of legal representatives to unfairly exploit the credibility of witnesses, and thus allows evidence to be assessed on its merits in pursuit of the

The causes of wrongful convictions are easy to identify: irregularities and incompetence at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages of the criminal justice system. More particularly, Kaiser identifies the following contributory factors, among others: false accusations, misleading police investigative work, inept defense counsel, misperceptions by Crown prosecutors of their role, factual assumption of an accuser’s guilt by actors in the criminal justice system, community pressure for a conviction, inadequate identification evidence, perjury, false confessions, inadequate or misinterpreted forensic evidence, judicial bias, poor presentation of an appellate case, and difficulty in having fresh evidence admitted at the appellate stage. Each instance of determined wrongful conviction illustrates a different combination of failures in the criminal justice system that has

The three components of the American criminal justice system are the police, courts, and corrections. These components operate independently of one another and maintain different goals, histories, and operating procedures (Neubauer & Fradella, 2017). There are two commonly accepted models of the criminal justice system, the crime control model and due process model. These two models vary at the basic level, the crime control model aims to protect society at all costs while the due process model protects the rights of individual citizens (Neubauer & Fradella, 2017). Americas criminal justice system is plagued with multiple issues that drive a wedge between the people and the criminal justice system, such as inconsistencies within the law,

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the occurrence of wrongful conviction in criminal trials and the effect of DNA testing on bringing attention to the alarming frequency of these unjust judicial outcomes. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, this paper will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties. Finally, this paper will discuss an important contradiction that advancements in science have exposed within our criminal justice system; while DNA technology and other advanced forensic techniques are increasingly being relied upon to secure criminal convictions, the justice system seems to be correspondingly reluctant to consider these forms of evidence for the

It has been reported that millions of crimes is committed in the United States of America which violates and harms the individual rights, properties, and freedoms that are not only guaranteed to American citizens of this country. It has been highlighted that justice is dealt with according to the crimes committed based on the findings and principles of our country, which derived from the Constitution of the United States. While it has been argued justice may not always be fair due to certain rights given to those who may be charged with crime sometimes an error is made. A simple mistake, a missing or broken link in the chain that represents the investigation and trial processes causes an innocent bystander to become caught up in an investigation. More importantly, in many cases can result in a wrongful conviction. This error can rise from many forms like a mistaken eyewitness identification, a false confession, misconduct of the governing authorities, improper forensic investigation, or including staff that neglect to make efforts or unskilled litigation by the defense attorneys. Those whom are affected endure years in prison, deal with lost wages, isolation from friends and family, scrutiny from potential employers, and isolation from their community.

Decades before the implementation of the Human Rights Act , Viscount Sankey’s prose in Woolmington v DPP alluded to the presumption of innocence as the “one golden thread” which runs through the web of English criminal law . He essentially establishes that the legal burden of proving the defendant’s guilt lies with the prosecution . This principle is arguably underlying in every jurisdiction that respects ones right to a fair trial and is the foundation of the criminal law. There are two important themes that must be discussed relating to the principles set out in Woolmington: Firstly, in this case it was acknowledged that there can be instances where a reverse burden of proof is applied and that in fact, the onus is on the defendant to prove his innocence rather than for the prosecution to prove his guilt. Secondly, despite some departure from the Woolmington principle, it does not inevitably necessitate that the law has been unfaithful to its underlying rationale. A common deduction of the Woolmington principle is that Sankey, in his judgement, is ambiguous and left too much open to interpretation. Furthermore, it has been argued by Adrian Zuckerman that the way in which something is written can in fact lead to a justified imposition of a legal burden on the defendant and that the accused will only have to prove their innocence by disclosing an onerous burden in situations where legislation expressly commands them to.

Since the late 1980s, there have been thousands of cases in which prime suspects have been wrongfully convicted, the most common causes being eyewitness misidentification, incriminating statements, and statements from informants. According to The Innocence Project, there have been almost four hundred post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in our country, and they are working to investigate even more wrongful conviction cases. This life changing program, along with their six attorneys, gather information about thousands of cases and determine whether or not DNA evidence can be reevaluated. Kenneth Ireland’s case was submitted for litigation after they found that the court relied heavily on false statements from witnesses. Researchers working

Criminal justice is defined as a social institution that has the mission of controlling crime by detecting, detaining, adjudicating, and punishing and/or rehabilitating people who break the law. There are three major institutions in the criminal justice system. There is law enforcement, courts system, and corrections. With these three institutions they work together to prevent and punish deviant behavior. When a person or group of people violate the rules of society to the point that someone is harmed or the interests of that society are harmed is called a crime.

Most people don’t know about the three major components of the criminal justice system, but, in this paper the reader will know what they are. The reader will also read about how the three components interrelate to one another, and also how the conflict one another. The

Being charged with a crime is one thing, but the defense you choose is an entirely different ball game. “In the field of criminal law, there are variations of situations that will tend to contradict elements of a crime, known as a defense”. When someone is charged with a crime the kind of defense that they choose could in the end determine their destiny with the case. The criminal defense a person chooses to use will depend on the crime they are charged with and the evidence they have at their disposal. “Whether a person has a federal criminal attorney, a state criminal attorney, or a public defender, a defense strategy should always be discussed before they enter the court room”. There is a variety of defenses that exist in our criminal justice system. In this essay I will be taking a close look at two different cases that have pleaded two different types of criminal defenses. I will take a look at the nature and types of defenses used in the cases and what evidence was used to help demonstrate that defense. I will also describe how justification and excuse played a role in the cases and lastly I will be describing the outcome of each case.

Before taking this class, I knew the criminal justice system needed a change, but I underestimated the change we need to see. I have never heard of the school to prison pipeline before this class, and to be honest I never considered the two to be directly connected. I can recall vividly so many of my friends in middle school being arrested. They spend a couple of months in “juvie”, and then they come back as if nothing has changed. Unfortunately, their cycle continued all throughout middle school. Today many of them are not in college and some of their cycles continue into adult prisons. My classmates and I assumed they were just going to boot camp like facilities, we never questioned their experiences, we just assumed that since they kept going back it was not as bad as adult jail. I finally realize that we treated them the same way society views them. Society does not look at their upbringing or their home situations. We assumed they liked trouble. I never once thought of the other children in the facilities with my friends, or their experiences. It took me six years to now realize that my friends were not just romanticized by the idea of trouble, they were truly living troubled lives and knew nothing outside of that.