Procedural Issues In The Criminal Justice System

Chapter 9 focuses on special topics, which reviews the five present and controversial issue in the criminal justice system. Out of all 5 of these issues I think that the use of confidential informants in war on drug is the most harmful to our nation’s correctional system and should be eliminated. The reason I think that the use of confidential informants should be eliminated drug war on drugs is because the use of CI’s frequently have negative consequence on the war on drugs (Austin & Irwin, 2012). The first example, is that CI’s are not appropriately screened and supervised, which causes innocent individuals to be arrest. In my opinion, I think that if CI’s are going to be used then they should be supervised at all time because the lack

18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), (a)(2)(A-D). The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). These factors, along with others specified in Section 3553 and any other factors the court deems relevant, must be considered, along with the Guidelines, when determining the appropriate sentence.

The realities and everyday necessities in Indigenous communities seem concealed and compromised in the enduring Indigenous criminal law discourse which is framed by issues throughout history, jurisdictions, prisons, courts and the criminal justice system. Whilst today’s intergeneration effects of poverty and the loss of autonomy fuel Indigenous disadvantage, the criminal law institution is another contributor which vividly displays disadvantages and barriers which preclude Indigenous Australians from sufficiently accessing justice. However, the pursuit for justice is more multifaceted than a return to Indigenous tradition and retainment of the dominant criminal justice system. The following essay will highlight this

During the period of the Great Depression (1920-1939), the criminal justice system reflected the same amount of struggle as the economy. At this point in America, there were many flaws within the structure of the criminal justice system. Inequality, developing system, and harsh realities of organized crime beat down the structure and credibility within trials. The need for reformation was evident. Minorities during this time period struggled overall for the same equal rights that the white majority was granted. African Americans were most called out on due to the fact they represent a different background, culture and have a unilateral political viewpoint. Although under the influence of the law, it was no different in court, when it came

In the article, “Supreme Court Decision Focuses State Attention on Sentencing Regimes,” written by Don Stemen and Daniel F. Wilhelm, the authors expand the idea of the actions taken to determine the criminal sentence in the Blakely v. Washington case. In the case, Blakely argued that this sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts legally essential to his sentence (Blakely v. Washington, n.d). During the sentencing process, numerous aspects has to be taken into consideration to give the defendant an appropriate sentence.

This paper will attempt to explain the importance of proportionality with regards to criminal sentencing, increase understanding of the reasons our sentencing procedures continually fluctuate, identify three groups of individuals protected under the 8th Amendment from receiving a death sentence for a capital offense, attempts to explain the relationship between sentencing and the 6th Amendment, and will discuss the origin of the felony murder rule and its applicability.

Three other procedural modifications were sanctioned by the Supreme Court in the Gregg decision. The first was divided hearings, wherein deliberations for the penalty stage and guilt are held separately. It is only after the jury decides if the defendant is guilty of capital murder does said jury get to decide in the second trial if the death penalty is warranted or if a lesser sentence is more appropriate. Another reform was the practice of automatic appellate evaluation of verdicts and punishment. The final procedural modification from the Gregg decision was a practice that assisted the state in recognizing and removing sentencing differences. It was through this method, the state appellate court was able to liken the verdict in the case

The criminal trial process has many aspects which aim to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society, including plea bargains and charge negotiations, the ability of defendants to hire legal representation and complete and partial defences. However, these processes do not always succeed in completely achieving justice for victims, offenders and society.

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.

Sentencing is essentially the final stage of the criminal justice process, aside from the appeals process. It is a dual decision-making process that consists of two significant stages. The first stage reflects the decision to grant incarceration or probation upon the accused, while the second stage involves determining the length of a sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2011). As this discussion focuses on the second stage of the sentencing process, it is important to understand key stakeholders involved at this decision-making point.

I will be identifying the general factors that influence a judge’s sentencing decisions (Bohm & Haley 2012). I will describe how judges tailor sentences to fit the crime and the offender.

The idea of having a criminal law, procedure and a proper court system has been a concern and must in the United States since it was first founded. This concept is always under consistent speculation and undergoes changes almost every year. One of the most influential pieces included into the procedure of criminal law and the court system is the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was created by the representatives of America to not only enforce the idea of substantive law, but also create a framework for the rights of every day Americans. Ever since the creation of the Bill of Rights, there has been a constant need for change laws and procedures in order to accommodate for rights given to each citizen. In this paper, the analysis of the

If the rule of "might is right" prevails, no procedural fairness exists, the law and legal authorities lose their legitimacy and the prevention of crime through punishment will be no more effective therefore the procedural fairness (also termed as procedural justice) is a tool to make the Criminal Justice System successful. The procedural fairness/ Procedural Justice is key factor to establish the legitimacy of the legal authorities and prosecution service plays its role not only for the provision of justice by getting the wrongdoers punished but it also ensures the procedural fairness in the whole process of administration of criminal justice starting from the investigation till the final outcome the case. The prosecution supervise the investigation process and ensures the compliance of the prescribed rules and principles

In a court of law, one’s crime should not be judged by the book alone, but rather by a matter circumstance and reason.

The function of the criminal courts in society is to control social order and protect the community. The criminal justice system is always changing because of updated laws. The criminal court has five components; the judge, the prosecutor, defendant lawyer, the defendant and the juror. Each component works together to provide the best result for both defendant and society. There are a few models inside the criminal court system that help depict the usefulness of how the courts work. Two of these models are the adversarial model and the second is the consensual model. The adversarial model is when the prosecutor and the defendant 's lawyer both speak before the judge and jury to show evidence pertaining to the defendant trying to prove innocence or guilt. In a consensual model, is where the prosecutor and defendant 's lawyer hash out the charges against the defendant and agree on an appropriate punishment. (Barken),pg 268 There are two more models inside the criminal court system that help portray the court 's efficiency this would be Due Process Model and the Crime Control Model, these solves the predicament confronted by the criminal courts to guarantee a person freedom and the need to protect the people. These two models comprise of analyzing crime and permitting the right justice to be conveyed. Due process method was intended to verify defendants had their rights ensured and that they had a reasonable opportunity to protect themselves in court. This model assumes that