Pre-sentence Reports

From a common perspective, being an NCR offender would be injustice for victims due to the belief of NCR offenders not receiving the wanted sentence. The media may play the case(s) as unjust or unfair, however the perspective of the offenders and their mental disorders are usually absent. As several stories, there is more than the publicized perspective, such as in federal cases; the perspective of the victims in major crimes is more broadcasted compared to the defendants, resulting in misunderstandings, judgments, and opinionated comments without all the facts. This can damage the reputation of defendants who are either innocent or suffering him/herself, such as NCR. Since the Not Criminally Responsible laws were placed in the judicial system

Measuring crime is based on three main measurements; criminal justice system data, crime experience surveys and other sources called administrative data (Hayes & Makkai, 2015). Firstly, crime first needs to be categorised into types of crime that is classified under the Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (Hayes & Makkai, 2015). Only the main and select few offences are reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in collecting annual reported crimes (Hayes & Makkai, 2015). Through ABS, it collects crime data in different ways such as crime reports, victimisations surveys, administrative data (higher courts, magistrates and policing agendas etc.,) and self-reports (Hayes & Makkai, 2015). Crime reports measure crimes such as homicide, robbery, rape, assault and more but is collected through police jurisdictions (Reid, 2012). The strength of crime reports provides additional information such as arrests, charges, officers assaults and characteristics of homicide victims (Reid, 2012). This helps to measure crime more effectively through gaining descriptions and knowledge of identifying crime and criminal behaviour more accurately (Reid, 2012). Administrative data is often helpful in collating data of sentences and jail sentences but fails to collect the ‘dark figure’ of crime (Hayes & Makkai, 2015). National Crime Victimisation Surveys (NCVS)

This essay explains sentencing in the United States Criminal Justice system. The objectives of punishment in the United States corrections is to help deter crime and to ensure reoffenders don’t reoffend. Sentencing impacts the corrections system and society in a positive manor by eliminating offenders out of the community. Sentencing may include one of the following: probation, fines, prison, community service, probation and so forth depending on the state you reside and the type of offense you commit. Each crime committed doesn’t have a set sentence, therefore they are determined on a case to case basis. The main goal of the criminal justice system is to defend the community and serve justice. Sentencing plays a vital role in the Criminal Justice system.

REFERENCESAustralian Law Reform Commission (1980), Sentencing of Federal Offenders, Discussion Paper No. 15Law Reform Commission NSW (2001), Discussion Paper 33(1996)-Sentencing, (Chapter 7. Parole), Lawlink New South Wales, Online. Available. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/DP33CHP7 3.4.2006No Author (2006), Sensible Sentencing NZ Justice: Why Parole?, Safe NZ, Online. Available. http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/paole.htm 3.4.2006Travis, L.F. (1995). Introduction to criminal justice (pp307

There have been many changes in the treatment of offenders by the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, particularly the treatment of female offenders. The handling of women within the criminal justice system has been closely tied to their social characteristics, and to what might be described as their ‘social construction’. On the other hand, women who compromise more than half of the world’s population, account for only 15% of criminal activity and as a consequence, relatively little attention has been given to them. This essay will explore how this has changed from a historical point of view to modern times, with exploration from cross-culture comparisons and an overview of the treatments of females in prisons.

The second supporting argument that Parliament imposes the judiciary to place too much emphasis on incarceration is characterized by the reduction of credit for pre-sentence custody credit. Fortunately, this was amended in 2014. The Truth in Sentencing Act, one of the government’s early “tough on crime” laws was passed in 2009, but became operative on Feb. 22, 2010. This Act contributed to the changes regarding the credit offenders received for pre-sentence detention or “dead-time,” that does not count towards any parole or early release eligibility. This curbed judge’s ability to give a break on sentencing when a convicted offender has spent lengthy time in pre-trial jail custody. This discount in sentencing had evolved to recognize that

The evaluation was looking at three components of re-offending to see if circle sentencing was effective. Firstly, if circle sentencing reduced the frequency of offending. Secondly, did participation in circle sentencing increase the time to the next proven prison offence and lastly, did circle sentencing reduce the seriousness of any further offending (Circle Sentencing). Fitzgerald used a quantitative method of study for this evaluation. Attending to the first component, Fitzgerald examined 68 offenders from circle sentencing, 40 from Dubbo, 24 from Nowra and 4 from Brewarrina. Fitzgerald also used a control group of offenders from local courts outside of Sydney (Circle sentencing). In addressing the second and third components, Fitzgerald examined 153 offenders from circle sentencing, 12 from Armidale, 10 from Bourke, 11 from Brewarrina, 63 from Dubbo, 14 from Kempsy, 15 from Lismore, 2 from Mt Druitt and 26 from Nowra (Circle sentencing). 21,324 indigenous offenders sentenced outside of Sydney between 2002 and 2007 were used as the control group. Overall, Fitzgerald reached the conclusion that circle sentencing had no impact on the frequency, seriousness or timing of offending (Circle sentencing, 30). However, this should be interpreted with caution. The results from this evaluation have the potential to be skewed as over fifty per cent of circle courts analysed were from Nowra and Dubbo. Fitzgerald also assumed the profile of communities, the kind of offence or offenders, the overall appropriateness of Aboriginal elders, project officers and resources available in each community were the same (Circle sentencing). Instead, nothing points to this being true. The CIRCA found each of these factors have the potential to impact the effectiveness of circle sentencing (circle sentencing, 31). Fitzgerald also noted “it should not be concluded that circle sentencing has no value simply

The ongoing role of prison within the UK Criminal Justice System is becoming increasingly unclear. On the one hand in the 21st century, it is considered to be a “state strategy for crime control, a deterrent for those contemplating crime and punitive response for those who have broken laws”McAvinchey (2011 pg.10). On the other hand, it is also supposed to have a rehabilitative purpose, the intended role of a prison is to rehabilitate the offender so that when they have completed their prison sentence, they can be successfully rehabilitated back into the community and live a crime free fulfilled life. Yet, when examining the vital statistics that underline an increase in prisoner population, it is clearly apparent that the system neither

As such, there is growing acknowledgment of this methods limits and failures. Victims, offenders, and community members often feel that justice does not adequately meet their needs (Roberts & Roach, 2004). Justice professionals, who make up the core components, such as judges, lawyers, prosecutors, probation and parole officers frequently express a sense of frustration as well. Many feel that the process of justice deepens societal wounds and conflicts rather than contributing to rehabilitation (Dzur & Olsen,

I believe that it is dire for criminal justice professionals to know and understand the history of the field of corrections to promote progressive change and enhancement. It is simply impossible to progress without knowing where the system has failed or faltered. I find this essential in a field that directly influences and affects humans. Professionals in the field of criminal justice are not only responsible for meeting the needs and desires of law-abiding civilians, but they are, more critically, responsible for responding to and reprimanding lawbreakers.

I feel that it is important for both public and CJS to realize that wrongful convictions can happen. Being the authority, CJS feels the responsibility of maintaining its credibility among the public, by making fair absolute decisions, however, they should not shy away from accepting their mistakes when they do happen. Also, an understanding and acceptance from the public will put less pressure on the officials when they do try to exonerate the individuals who have been wrongfully accused.

Mandatory sentencing involves the implementation of legislation to remove an element of judicial discretion by imposing minimum or mandatory sentences for a particular offence or type of offender. From the perspective of society, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the rule of law in ensuring that laws are predictable and applied equally across all individuals by aiming to match the punishment to the crime, as well as reduce crime and recidivism. Depending on the outlook taken, mandatory sentencing may be said to promote the individual’s right to a fair trial as it encourages consistency but by the same token a conflict arises in that it strips the judiciary of the power to tailor sentences to the unique circumstances of each case.

The author would have to say that the statistics coupled with the creation of the United States Sentencing Committee reveal that judicial discretion was at a much higher level prior to 1984, and has been on a decline as legislature has begun to regulate the discretion in which judges having in regard to sentencing in criminal cases. “Anderson, Kling, and Smith (1999) investigated 77,201 criminal cases decided between

The legitimacy of the criminal justice system is based largely upon both its effectiveness and its fairness. Its effectiveness is judged by its ability to investigate and detect crime, identify offenders and mete out the appropriate sanctions to those who have been convicted of offences. Its fairness is judged by its thoroughness and the efforts it makes to redress the resource imbalance between the accused and the state at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages. The system does this by providing evidentiary protection and effective legal representation at all points.

Scottish Criminal Justice Scottish criminal justice is a very complicated are of study. There are many different topics of thought that surround the Scottish criminal justice system, in terms of both physical and mental areas. The criminal justice system stems out into a number of different other subject areas mainly because criminal justice affects so many different fields in society. It’s not just simply about police arresting criminals, the accused going to court and ending up the criminal goes to prison.