Now it is considered offensive and unusual, therefore deviant. It can be difficult to give a clear definition of deviance as a lot of it depends on people’s values and opinions. What one person views as deviant behaviour another may view as normal. Also deviant behaviour is not always bad; there is good and odd deviant behaviour. This makes it harder to define as classifying behaviour requires taking a moral standpoint and judging.
These limitations are shown regularly in the areas of juries and victims’ rights. Our laws may not always be enforceable and at times, victim’s rights may be turned away to promote resource efficiency. Juries and the jury system are one of the most controversial and publicly highlighted issues within the criminal trial process. In the modern era where many pieces of evidence involve technology and forensics, some jurors may have difficulty understanding evidence due to the increasing technical nature of some cases. This is shown in an article written by Justice Kevin Duggan in the Sydney Morning Herald (July 25, 2011) where he states that “criminal cases are becoming too complicated for juries”.
Another word for this is "blind justice" which means not blind to the facts but blind to the wealth, color, religion etc. of the accused. In most circumstances, the Judge or Jury is bound to find the accused innocent unless he is convinced "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" of the guilt of the accused In most inquisitorial systems, a criminal defendant does not have to answer questions about the crime itself but may be required to answer all other questions at trial. Many of these other questions concern the defendant's history and would be considered irrelevant and inadmissible in an adversarial system. A criminal defendant in an inquisitorial system is the first to testify.
Looking at the case there would have been a high level of anxiety amongst the witnesses when they were interviewed on site as they would have been in shock at what had happened, thus the inconsistencies with their statements.The Yerkes-Dodson law provides evidence to support my statement. It showed, that when there were low or very high levels of anxiety memory recall was low, and when a moderate amount of anxiety was evident the memory recall was the best. This proves that the high level of anxiety in the witnesses in their first statement may have corrupted the overall result of the case. Further studies by Elizabeth Loftus also support the fact that anxiety plays a major role in a EWT. She staged an experiment in which participants (Ps) were put in two different situations.
Ethical Considerations for the Investigator and Prosecutor in Homicide and Rape The investigator and prosecutor play very critical roles, roles that are only fairly fulfilled if all parties are as ethical as possible. Failing to act ethically can lose a case, set a criminal free or could even mean someone innocent going to prison. While ethics in every single type of case are important we are going to examine homicide and rape. Both homicide and rape leave the public hungry for answers. We must be sure that finding those answers are done ethically from the crime scene to trial.
Feldman (2009), eye witness and victims are sometimes better able to recall the details of a crime when hypnotized. Eye witness testimony can make a deep impression on a jurrry, which is often exclusively assigned the role of sorting our credibility issues and making judgments about the truth of witness statements. Fisher(1999), argues that arriving at a just result and a correct determination of truth is difficult enough without added possibility that witness themselves give. Tversky (1999), also pointed out that witnesses are a powerful impact on juries. Basing on the above elucidation, one may deduce that eye witness testimony plays a fundamental role in the legal system.
If crime goes unchecked, it will eventually lead to the breakdown of public order, and therefore, will undermine human freedom. The innocent law-abiding citizens will invariably become the victims of unjustifiable criminal acts and thus, a highly efficient criminal justice system is necessary to guarantee social freedom. It suggests that efficient criminal justice process should operate like an assembly-line conveyor belt, rapidly churning out cases after cases with closed files as the finished products, as it were. As “quantity” as opposed to “quality” being the over-riding objective of such a system, it recommends that legal procedures that hamper police operations be removed and police powers be expanded to make it easier for the police to investigate, arrest, search, seize and
Also, technology and managerial efforts’ failures are conceivable and it can be crucial in certain circumstances. Similarly, judges’ plan for placing yard signs is somewhat raise negative signal in the criminals, who wants to overcome his guilt. As a result, he would isolate himself from the society, and which in turn will produce negative outcomes. Then again, for the public safety, it is necessary to ratify different security mechanism despite the presence of moral and legitimate issues. So, it would be healthy to trace and map criminal’s residence to avoid potential threats of
We can also utilise these responses to help us perform at a higher level. Some people find it difficult to perform at their optimum level unless they are under a certain amount of pressure. This pressure although self induced creates stress and anxiety though hopefully only enough to achieve the required results. Anxiety and stress become a problem when they start to be detrimental to a person. That is to say when they impede a person’s progress and /or start to dictate the things we choose to do, or in some cases they can get to such an elevated level that they cause health issues.
The concept of surveillance can therefore involve numerous techniques, as will be discussed later within this paper. For the average law abiding citizen the issue of surveillance has different debatable point of views. One argument that can be drawn is whether an individual’s choice of privacy is being stripped with the advancement and placement of surveillance implementations (need to be reworded). Should this choice also be extended to those who commit serious deviant crimes? Offenders who are convicted of sex crimes are often considered some of the most dangerous to society, thus deemed in need of constant monitoring and surveillance when in the community.