The Pros And Cons Of Criminal Criminology

The criminal justice system is a used to protect our society from those who try to harm it. Departments such as courts, and police officers study the behavior of criminals; they want our communities to be safe. When a crime is committed these departments work together to protect the rights of our society and our own. As stated in the textbook, a crime is the “Conduct in violation of the criminal laws of a state, the federal government, or a local jurisdiction for which there is no legally acceptable justification or excuse” (Schmalleger). Our system is a balanced system, there are times where have to think about our own rights as one person, but there are also times where we have to include other people. We must think of our society and

The criminal justice system has been proven to play a very important role in society. The criminal justice system is used to keep the citizens in check and to make sure that the laws that are made are being followed. It also is there to penalize anyone who disobeys the laws. In the criminal justice system, there are 3 main parts, law enforcement, adjudication, and corrections. Law enforcement is self-explainable. It consists of the law enforcers such as police officers and sheriffs. Adjudication is made up of people in the court house such as judges and lawyers. Corrections is made up of jailhouse matters such as prison officials. In these many components of the criminal justice system, there are all put in place to help correct people to do the right thing. There are punitive efforts and rehabilitative efforts. At time, the system may lean towards one category or more, which can be dangerous in terms of disciplinary action. The criminal justice system is more punitive than rehabilitative which makes the system ineffective.

Talking about making our communities safer, judges have increasing sentences to the offenders and over 90 per cent of offenders who fail to comply are now returned to court for tougher punishment. Re-offending rates are down. There has been a major reduction in the number of re-offences committed by both adults and juveniles a 22.9 per cent fall for adults and an 18.7 per cent fall for juvenile. Public confidence in the criminal justice system has risen in recent years, although corrections still need to do more to demonstrate to communities that the system is on their side in delivering justice. Personally, there is still too wide a gap between the reality about crime and the public’s perception.

The current jury system is based on an almost millennium-old principle found in the Magna Carta (1215). As a result of changes in society since, the system must be seen as potentially outdated. In other words, it may not satisfy the needs of modern society, judged by what the major stakeholders of the criminal justice system expect. Indeed, there are substantial flaws in current jury systems in terms of effectiveness. The two major concerns with jury systems are their representativeness and their levels of competence. The representativeness of juries is essential as their reason for existing is to represent the views of society. Having twelve jurors could be understood to ensure representativeness and eliminate room for bias. However, this does not remove the possibility of juries being biased towards parties. Even if the potential jurors contacted are representative in terms of gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic status and though jury duty is a compulsory engagement, 90% of Queenslanders opt out of it. This makes it very likely that juries will not be representative. One example is ethnic diversity. There is likely to be less ethnic diversity in courts because ethnic minorities might not have sufficient language ability or access to interpreters to be jurors. Another example is age. It is likely that retired people

Criminal justice is defined as the system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of Committing a crime. Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between GOD and humans. Criminal justice is a process, involving a series of steps beginning with a person committing an alleged crime, a criminal investigation and ending with the release of a convicted offender from correctional supervision. Rules and decision making are at the center of the process.

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

The Classical school of criminology can be known as the free will to act at one’s own discretion, where an individual chooses to break the law upon a desirable choice. The Classical emphasizes how the system was organized, punishments for crime, and how authorities should react to crime. On the other hand, positivist school was created to see what influences an individual to break the laws, based on human beings’ behavior. Positivist school is simply trying to analyze who, what, and how crime is initiated. This study will identify the schools’ argument, and if they complement each other, the advantages and disadvantages, and the different approaches or points of view from multiple criminologist regarding the schools and theories.

In chapter 4, the textbook discusses the Criminal justice system and how the system works. The criminal justice system is a system setup to punish those accused of criminal offenses. Crimes such as murder, rape, robbery or crimes that are considered felonies. Many people are found guilty of their crimes and others are found innocent. People find this a good system to properly punish those who have committed offenses. I disagree that the system is a good system that helps people. The reason for me disagreeing is that the system is not perfect. There have been cases where the jury has come to a verdict that was wrong. Cases where the jury wrongly incarcerated somebody or cases where the jury acquitted somebody when they were guilty. A system

People often wonder why does the criminal justice (CJ) system fail to rehabilitate the inmates before they are released from prison, after all isn’t that part of the process? Isn’t it a mandatory that the inmates participate in this rehabilitation process? Inmates are often released before their sentenced in completed and this can leave the victim and family with a feeling of betrayal from the justice system, they should serve more time, after all they stole my property and my money. This feeling of needing a longer sentence for the crime that was committed is excessive, especially when the crime value may be minimal and wanting the inmate to serve seven to ten years incarcerated in excessive.

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

While reading this chapter, I was quite surprised to see the high rates of incarceration in the United States when compared to other Western countries. By simply examining opinion polls of Americans, it would seem that the criminal justice system is too lenient, which results in the propagation of the leniency myth. These findings have important implications for public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. Confidence arises out of positive attitudes; if people believe that sentences are overly lenient they will have little confidence in the courts, regardless of the reality of sentencing practice (NCSC, 2007). On the basis of these survey findings alone, politicians, policy-makers and the media have concluded that the public

In 1997, prison sentences were not successful in turning offenders away from crime. Once released from imprisonment around 58 per cent are back in prison within two years of being released due to reconviction and 36

In today’s modern and culturally changing American society, the jury plays a crucial role in our democracy. Jury service allows defendants to exercise their right to a fair and impartial trial. However, in recent years there have been incidents where jurors have been excluded on the grounds of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. These exclusions have a great impact on the fairness of a trial.

One of the most intricate processes in the criminal justice system is the jury selection process. During this process members of a trial are asked various questions by the prosecution and defense attorneys handling the case at hand. Along with these questions the jury uses three main challenges, also known as voir dire, to insure the selection is not leaning in favor of a certain community or racially biased; challenges to the array, challenges for the cause, and peremptory challenges (Rennison & Dodge 2017) all of which I will discuss in the proceeding paragraphs.

The book begins with a discussion of two key issues providing the impetus for this text: Limited and/or inconsistent research findings related to juror and jury decision making and flawed theoretical approaches to understanding juror and jury decision making. Devine traces the almost exponential growth in jury research from the 1950s to present with an emphasis on advancements in methods used and diversification of topics. He next discusses the evolution of increasingly complex theories and models used to predict decision-making outcomes for both jurors and juries. Devine concludes this initial component of the book with several criticisms of extant theoretical models including the emphasis on why rather than how decisions are made, the focus on criminal trials to the exclusion of other types of trials, the failure to integrate juror-level and jury-level models, and the lack of a comprehensive approach that incorporates all aspects of the trial and its participants. In these introductory chapters, Devine does an excellent job of capturing the growing interest in jury decision making and highlights an important gap in the field of jury research—the need for a