Criminal Procedure Policy Paper CJA/ 364 Criminal Procedure May 29, 2012 Criminal Procedure Policy Paper The role the criminal justice system plays in society is expansive. Criminal justice is designed to keep the public safe, to stop wrongdoing, to punish wrongdoers, and to provide order to society. Given this broad role there will be times when criminal justice will not perform all roles well. This means, of course, that criminal justice will often fail to meet public expectations. Ultimately, the needs people have for criminal justice mean that they believe the criminal justice system should be designed to pursue goals that fulfill
They are suggesting that the state government should look into the possibility of using community-based alternative to detention which is not only more cost-effective but could also be a more effective solution to juvenile crimes. But this could only work if you have those teens who want the help. So that’s why they provide them with the feel like you at home setting. The state feel if we can provide them with the essential of doing the right thing, they will less likely to commit a crime. But being touch on crime is always a good approach, that’s what are need to stay on track.
Crime maybe controlled by fear of punishment 4. Punishment that is severe, certain, and swift will stop crime They believed in fast punishment instead of long trials. One of the major parts of criminal punishment reform was for fair and equal treatment of accused offenders. Judges could punish criminals however they wanted to no matter how severe the crime. Mr. Beccaria and other members of the Classical School fought for punishment to be set by legislative instead of judges having all of the authority for punishment.
Durkheim went on to say that crime isn’t only inevitable, it can also be functional. Durkheim argued that it only becomes dysfunctional (harmful to society) when its rate is unusually high or law. He argued that all social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for change to occur, yesterday’s deviance must become today’s normality. Since a certain amount of change is good for society (so that it can progress rather than stagnate), so is deviance.
Acts of armed robbery that end in violence or homicide tend to render the public outraged and give their voice a stronger demand for justice to be done. If we choose to take the stance that our criminal justice system is mean to only keep society safe and that justice is carried out then we need to recognize that the laws we have in place currently are set in place to do so. In theory we could see how enforcing a harsher sentence to those who choose to commit violent acts or armed robbery would work as a deterrent to prevent criminals from committing the act as often as they do
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
One example of this is that more police officers can go onto the police force, so that the young person sees them everywhere and believes that they mightcatch them. Specific deterrence says that if a single person is punished strongly for onecrime, then they will not commit this crime again out of fear of punishment. For example,a youth who commits a crime is put into a program. Crime prevention strategies that aresituational aim to tell young people that the benefits of crime are not worth the eventual punishment. This is to let people know that the punishment always far outweighs thecrime.
Could be considered the conservative approach to the crime prevention module. Supporters prefer the “assembly line” (Worral p.14) method to expedite alleged criminals through the means of plea bargains to not clog up the courtrooms, which can be tied with quantity over quality. For example, meeting citation quotas or setting up DUI check points, which in essence is for the benefit of public safety; but can also be seeing as a way to increase revenue. One issue at the current moment would be the need for cameras on the uniforms of officers policing the street. The Due Process model would say that it is needed to make sure that officers properly follow procedures while questioning or detaining suspect on the street, in the case that something gets out of hand, a jury can see what actually happened.
Based on my assessment, I have concluded that there are more negative aspects to the bill passing rather than positive ones. First, I will discuss to you the positive outcomes I see should the bill be passed. If the punishment for committing armed robbery were doubly harsh, there is a strong likelihood that it will deter criminals from committing such crimes. In turn this would lower crime rates relatively around the country. Lower crime rates is another possible positive outcome.
The general ideal of the deterrence method suggest that one punishment is enough to deter other people if the situation is take care of quickly enough. General deterrence basically believes if young people see that society both intends to punish criminal acts, they will be deterred from committing a crime by the factors and awareness. The more severe and swift the punishment is, then the greater of the deterrent effect. An example could be having more police officers on the streets, thus convincing potential delinquents that they will be caught. Specific deterrence method focuses on the fact that if an individual is punished strongly for one crime, then they will not commit this crime again out of fear of punishment.