Essay on criminal procedure

Judges and magistrates must consider a wide variety of factors when determining a sentence for an offender. Primarily, the sentence must coincide with the statutory guidelines e.g that set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the judicial guidelines that set precedent for all judges and magistrates in the state. Within this legislation are the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed, types of penalties, minimum/maximum sentences and mandatory sentences.

The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.

This provision outlines a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment if found guilty of deliberately and negligently choking, suffocating or strangling an individual to the point of significant harm. It further outlines a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment if found guilty of committing such act with additional

Statutory and judicial guidelines inform the exercise of judicable discretion in the area of sentencing. They aim to provide greater uniformity in sentencing matters and enhance the integrity of the process. Judicial guidelines are set by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. They are not binding but their aim is to structure discretion. For example, for the offence of culpable driving the court has indicated that in the normal course a custodial sentence should be imposed unless exceptional circumstances exist. In terms of statutory guidelines a number of acts inform the exercise of judicial discretion. For example, the Crimes Act 1900 NSW prescribes the maximum sentence that may be imposed for various offences. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW also prescribes general guidelines in relation to sentencing. For example it

The next court appeal is the Victorian High Court. This is the next court higher than the supreme court and is the only court that can decide whether the decision is too harsh or not severe enough. Therefore the high court can change decisions made by the supreme court judge.

The 5th amendment declares No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person

Another type of custodial sentence is a mandatory life sentence which is the only sentence a judge has to impose for murder and is allowed to state the minimum length of sentence for the offender before is eligible to be released on license. This minimum is governed by Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 269 Shed 21 and it is giving to the judge the starting point for minimum length to be ordered to the offender, ranged from life sentence down up to 12 years, e.g. for child murder, sexual or sadistic murder the offender can serve 30 years imprisonment. The aim of retribution, incapacitation and general deterrence can be used to support this type of sentencing.

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

The legislation that governs most criminal law in South Australia is the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA) and Summary Offences Act. In this system there are summary and indictable offences determined by the severity of the crime. Summary offences are tried in a Magistrate Court as the nature of the crime requires lower penalties, for example traffic violations and shoplifting are summary offences. Indictable offences are serious offences such as murder, rape and armed robbery which are subject to imposition of heavier penalties. In South Australia a clear court hierarchy follows from the Magistrates Court to the District, Supreme and after the appeals courts and finally the High Court. The Supreme Court hears most major indictable offenses, including murder, treason and related offences. Individuals can appeal their legal disputes if they believe they did not receive a fair verdict. In contrast, media representations are negative with biased presentations of courts – the appeal process is undetailed and implies that the court system may not produce valid outcomes, only inconsistencies. Instead, the clear, natural process provides Rule of Law by allowing courts to review the verdicts of judges and application of law to

When a crime is committed against another person, then justice must be served to those who committed the crime. In some cases the crimes involve sexual attacks on grown adults while some offenses are against minors. In these examples the underling connection is the committed crimes of sexual abuse or sexual assault on adults and minors. When these crimes are brought before the justice system they are processed and the convicted are given a sentence to carry out but sometimes those sentences may not provide efficient time to produce the required outcome of correcting the individual or may be determined that there is no fixing the convicted disorder. The United States Supreme Court decision to hold a mentally ill, sexually dangerous

Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.

This paper will describe my understanding of the text and of the lectures provided in the class. Unlike most classes, where I understood only my view of the text, this class was geared so each student would understand each other’s view. 3 An organization is a collective that has some boundary and internal structure that engages in activities related to some complex set of goals. Members of organizations attempt to meet their psychological, ego and emotional needs within the organization. Criminal justice organizations are particularly unique compared to other public or private sector organizations because of the governmental granted authority. Management within these organizations can be defined as the process by

During a trial, there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct that must be observed. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecution. According to one author, “Police, prosecutors, and criminal court Judges see too much crime, so they tend to see crime everywhere. We need rules to control their conduct, Judges to carefully apply those rules, and other Judges to review those decisions (law-article.net).” Courtroom procedures are important because, without them, defendants and prosecution alike could be treated unfairly. These procedures give a standard format for trials that must be followed to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their

Source: Reprinted from The Limits of the Criminal Sanction by Herbert L. Packer, with the permission of the publishers, Stanford University Press. ( 1968 by Herbert L. Packer.

Following such protocol could help in cases where classifying a person’s guilt is based on fact finding by way of fair and honest legal procedures instead of presenting facts alone. Because the rights listed in the Constitution are not simple, accountability and liability must be present for criminal justice officials and authorities. Equality and uniformity should have a place in the justice process.