The Criminal Justice System: A Case Study

Rooted in our civilization, restorative justice was once viewed as a sin against a sovereign society of a King, Queen, or Emperor. Albert Eglash (1975) first articulated restorative justice over retributive and rehabilitative justice, an indeed search for the original status of security of the victim’s feelings. Restorative Justice, a more victim-centered aspect of punishment than the offender, however, the victim should consider, what it is that restorative justice will restore to its original state of security, and would it be enough justice that the victim seeks.

James Dignan’s concepts related to offenders, but mostly, related to victims. In his work “The victim in restorative justice” (2007), he argues that restorative justice “has a tendency to focus primarily on offenders and reconviction rates rather than on victim-related concerns” (p.309). Dignan goes on explaining that only after Braithwaite’s theory became more developed in Australia and New Zealand, the role of victims became clearer (Dignan, 2007). He says that there are beneficial distinctions between reciprocal benefits and one-sided benefits, depending on the interaction of the

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.

Victimology draws together academics, activists, and policymakers from a variety of backgrounds and identifies three main victimological perspectives. Positivist victimology dates back to the emergence of victimology as a discipline in the 1940s. It looks to understand the process of victimisation and why people become victims of crime by examining the relationship between the victim and offender through an agency lens. Newburn (2013) identifies positivists such as Miers (1989) who see victimisation as being causal in nature and identify three key features:

Like the media, the criminal justice system and organisations in and around the criminal justice system play a major contribution in the construction of an ‘ideal victim’. As stated by ‘….Rock (2006), Institutional practices shape the public representations and private understandings of victims of crime’. For instance, in Australia there are many organisations that help victims and their families of serious crimes. Although on the other hand, there are limited or no services available to victims of minor crimes.

A prosecutor looking for real justice, Adam Foss demonstrates just how effective rhetorical devices can be to persuade a population to defend the rights of others. When telling the story of how people end up in the criminal justice system, Foss tells “Even in our ‘worst.’ I saw...childhood trauma, victimization, poverty...interaction with the police…”(3:24) Many people tend to see people convicted of crimes as inhuman or lesser than us. However, Foss begins to humanize them. Moreover, he states that the reason these people commit crimes isn’t because of some violent, unfathomable reason, but rather because of their rough experiences earlier in life. To fix crime, people must step up and fix issues that cause crime, not throw people into a broken

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

The courtroom is a vital part of the criminal justice system, and a major role in the judicial branch of our government. In the courtroom there are specified roles given to certain people that allow them to to actively engage in the system and get it to work efficiently and properly so that justice is served. The major roles of the courtroom work group are: Police officer, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, defendant, victim, bailiff, court reporter, and the jury. In this essay I will describe in depth the responsibilities of each of these important courtroom characters.

The Parallel theory applied to the murder of John Geer starts with Officer Torres violating the social contract (Newmark, 2017a). Officer Torres broke this contract by killing John Geer (Newmark, 2017a). The law prohibits murder because the behavior can cause harm to society and to individuals (Newmark, 2017a). Parallel theory does not replace or take the place of the criminal justice system but works alongside (Herman, 2013). Officer Torres should be accountable for his crime but he should also be rehabilitated by counseling or other types of programs that will make him safe to be back in society (Newmark, 2017d). The criminal justice system relies on a conviction to get resolution for the victims (Herman, 2013). With the parallel theory John Geer’s family would get access to healing immediately after the crime and a priority on the safety of the family (Herman, 2013). The harm Officer Torres did to John Geer is not the only harm done. The harm done to the family and friends also needs to be a concern (Newmark, 2017b). Unlike offender based criminal justice theories, parallel theory holds the offender accountable by using the criminal justice system and the victims of the crime can be healed or compensated with the victim’s justice system (Newmark, 2017b). The government-based victim justice system should help the family of John Geer get through the after math of the crime with counseling or other types of programs that will help the family (Newmark,

The offenders are given a chance to actively participate in the compensation to their victim directly. In some casescases, this can include money, community service in a general form or community service that is specific to the offense that was committed. It also

As of not so long ago victims of crime have been considered the 'overlooked individuals' of the criminal justice system. It is common for victims of crime to feel powerless and without a voice in the criminal justice system. Victims can now be heard through a document called a Victim Impact statement, it is the victims chance to tell the courts about the effect that the crime has burdened on the individual, physically, and emotionally. Numerous changes have been started with an end goal to guarantee causalities support in the justice procedure. In any given case, members of the jury who were presented with a VIS were less likely to find the defendant guilty for their post-deliberation verdicts, and those who found the defendant guilty gave significantly harsher sentence recommendations and were more likely to impose the death penalty than jurors who did not receive victim impact evidence.

Victimless crimes, the illegal act(s) that involves consenting adults and lacks a complaining participant, have been the topic of heated debate for some time now (Kendall, 2014). This debate centers primarily on the question as to whether these acts should be crimes at all. The arguments take several forms. One of the controversies involves the importance of personal freedom versus society’s idea to uphold moral standards. A second issue addresses the problem of the conception of harm. People who stand on this side on this side of the argument raise questions as to whether victimless crimes are harmful not only to the participants but to others in society as well. More importantly, they ask whether such acts result in negative

The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

With the rise of Civil Rights Movement in western countries, the circumstances of the criminal victims are getting more attention gradually. Due to this emphasis, it directly led to a first revolution in the criminal justice, the revival Restorative justice. For a criminal justice system, victim support and healing is a priority which might seem an obvious aim. "Restorative Justice" was first introduced by an American professor, Randy Barnett in 1977. Nowadays, restorative justice systems have been applied to criminal justice system in many countries (Tai Wan, Australia, the US and the UK etc). In spite of many researches of restorative justice composed by western scholars, however it has not yet been defined properly and cover over the cons of this system. Restorative Justice repairs the harm that caused by crime and reducing the future harm on victims, there are advantages yet there are also bad. In this essay, I will use the application of the principles of sociology, literature, ethics knowledge to demonstrate argumentation to restorative justice and to reflect the pros and cons. (160words)

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal