It is insulting to the victims and families of victims of serious crimes that the justice system fails to make sure that criminals pay the price for the devastation that they cause. For example, Johannes Mehserl only served 2 years in prison for the killing of innocent member of public, Oscar Grant. At the same time, there are examples of 5 years prison sentences for the possession of marijuana. This is enormously unfair, as someone who can take the life of another human being should receive a far harsher punishment than someone whose crime only effects themselves.
In today’s society, the level of punishment for crimes are decided and applied by the laws of every country. However, in recent years there has been an increasing sense that
…show more content…
How is this possible? How can it be fair that the justice system give a woman who was motivated by love to end her child’s suffering, twice the sentence that was given to a man who set out to harm innocent people? These cases demonstrate the inequality in the justice system that can be caused by judges having too much power to vary the sentences they give to people. If there were clearer guidelines on minimum and maximum sentencing, it would significantly help to address these miscarriages of justice.
Although the public want to see criminals punished, the justice system today has been criticised for applying punishments which can seem excessive and sometimes ridiculous. For example, a pub landlord was jailed for six months and fined £10,000 for allowing people to smoke in his 2 pubs when the smoking ban came in to force in 2008. With the cost of a place in the UK prison totalling to £119,000, how can this be seen as good value for the tax payer? In addition to these costs, this approach to justice leads to the greater problem of prison over-crowding. A clear example of this problem can be seen when looking at United States of America. One adult American in every ten will go to prison (one in nine for young African American men). America has a prison population of a staggering 2.5 million – nearly half the total population of
The criminal justice system plays a fundamental role in achieving justice, as the system aims to protect all members of the community fairly and equally. However, in the criminal case of R v Loveridge, it is evident that the justice system fails to apply the law to equally balance the needs of the victims and the community. In this case, the offender Kieran Loveridge pleaded guilty to five counts of offences; three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the victim being Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 4 years’ non-parole for manslaughter, Loveridge’s total effective sentence therefore is 7 years and 2 months with an effective
It is common knowledge that crime exists all over the world and that justice and punishment may vary in different countries and societies. However, how justice and punishment is enforced in a society and globally is not common knowledge. Global justice refers to the belief that the world is unjust; while social justice, in a manner of speaking, refers to the fair treatment of everyone in a society.(“Social Justice”). Both social and global justice value human rights, remove inequality, and holds people accountable for fair practices.(“Social Justice”). If someone commits the same crime as another person, for example, they should receive the same punishment. That is what most people would be inclined to believe, but in the reading “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman, crime and justice is reviewed and defined in an uncommon way. Reiman discusses justice in a society where a crime was committed against him and his wife.
In almost every society, there are crimes and violations of human rights. To deal with these things, there are laws that prescribe the prevention of their occurrences. However, if the law is broken, commensurate punishment is put on the violator. Depending on the seriousness of the crime, the punishment may be light such as imprisonment for up to one year with corresponding fines, or it could also be severe as death penalty.
“Lock them up and throw away the key” – that is usually the headline when in regards to offenders going to prison. However, billions of dollars are going into maintaining prisons, yet the rate of recidivism is around 44% (Pearsons, 2011), so it is clear that prisons are no longer effective. The main argument of this paper is that because prisons are inefficient, they should be abolished so other forms of punishment can be found and acted upon. Firstly, this paper will discuss the function of prisons in regards to penal abolition. Also, it will identify what penal abolition is and explain three alternatives to prison – housing alternatives, restorative models, and
What has society done about reforming sentencing laws in order to reduce the incarceration population? The fair sentencing Act which was signed by president Obama has helped reduce the number of inmates impacted by mandatory minimum sentencing by “reducing the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, it also increases penalties for major drug traffickers” (White House 2010). What the Act did was changed the ratio of Crack cocaine v Cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (U. S. Department of Justice 2010). This Act is beneficial because it
In the past four decades, there has been a staggering increase in the United States prison population at the local and state level. Currently there are 2.2 million people in the nation’s prisons and jails that has added up to a 500% increase over 40 years (The sentencing project). The cause of this prison growth is a variety of laws and punitive sentencing policies that were initiated starting in the early 1970’s. Policies such as harsh drug penalties for non-violent crimes, Mandatory Minimum Maximum sentences and the Three Strikes law have all contributed to America’s current problem of mass incarceration.
Mass incarceration has been a huge social problem since the 1980s; it came hand in hand with the war on drugs. Elliott Currie, a professor of criminology and law, suggests that building more prisons, imposing longer sentences, and applying harsh punishments will not lower the incarceration rate. In his chapter on “Assessing the Prison Experiment,” he explained that the increase of crime rate is not the sole reason that mass incarceration occurs, and it was also because courts
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
The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. Different jurisdictions have diverse laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. In recent years, it has been debated that the criminal justice system has two primary and possibility conflicting perspectives known as the retributive justice approach and the restorative justice approach. Retributive justice and restorative justice have contrasting approaches when imposing punishment, that will be explored within this research paper, in regards to the disadvantages and potential advantages resulting from the implementation of it’s polices within the criminal justice system. These two perspectives have been implemented amongst many different criminal justice systems internationally, however the questions still remain, what is justice? And how should justice be served? This debate has created a divide between countries, due to the differing interpretations of justice and it’s response to criminal activity. The statistical information has been extracted from various online sources listed within the references as well as primary and secondary sources, “Prisons” by Haley, James and “Alternatives to Prisons” by Jennifer Skancke.
These fluctuations in criminal justice policies are not just in local governing bodies; these changes are an effort to adapt to a new technologically based modern age, and that goal of adaptation radiates to all ends of the earth, thereby having a global reach. As all societies, and populations of people alter and change, and belief systems ebb and flow, the rules and laws that govern such people must change with them. It is imperative that a governing system stay current, for without an ever-changing system of behavioral structure then those societies race faster toward
The concept of crime differs widely between nations and within different social groups, locally and globally. The influence of governments, corporations and individuals who are able to wield power enables differing concepts of crime to flourish, and the interpretation of crime to vary according to laws implemented by those in power. Criminal justice also varies within different nation states. In exploring the complexities of crime it is important to emphasise that power can offer protection and immunisation for those who have caused harm to members of society. Making people accountable for their actions
There is an ongoing problem in our society regarding punishment and responsibility. We, as a society, tend to look away when it comes to how criminals are being punished and maybe we should be paying more attention. Violence seems to be an integral part of our society, some raise their children with violence, we watch it on television, read it in newspapers and books and now we are even playing violent video games. When it comes to the judicial system the majority of citizens do not even know how individuals are being punished or if the punishment is too harsh, not severe enough or if the individual even needs punishment because what they may need is psychiatric help.
Since the beginning of the regime on criminal law, countries across the world have been focused on the rights of the accused and not those of victim. This is because of the consideration that the accused is alone and the government as well as the societal machinery is running against him.
To begin with, it is necessary to say that punishment is an integral part of modern countries’ legal systems, because countries have a duty to protect society from wrongdoers and authorities could reach success in it by punishing offenders. Oxford English Dictionary defines punishment as the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence. There are four main purposes of punishment – incapacitation, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation – and the aim of this paper is to
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law