BRIEF HISTORY OF THE JURY SYSTEM The system is believed to date as far back as Norman times and is thought to have been used as a means of gathering information for the king. It became more popular with the abolition of trial by ordeal in 1215. The system transformed from one where the accused was kept in a ‘hard’ prison until trail by jury was accepted (Statute of Westminster 1275) and one which consisted of jurors who were conversant or knowledgeable on the issue, to one that is fair, impartial and is comprised of non-specialist jurors. HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) the jury was governed by the Jury Act 1974 (JA 1974). s.1 JA 1974 states
He is very experienced in criminal law and is against mandatory sentencing. This journal presents information that the mandatory sentencing policy in the U.S. is a failure. It argues that Legislators thought that they could “get tough on crime,” especially drug crime. I feel this source gives educated reasons as to why drug policy needs to be changed. It also backs up my other sources with the same research results; by removing the sentencing discretion of judges, and replacing it with mandatory jail sentences, we are sending more offenders to prison instead of programs designed to rehabilitate.
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.
Even though I think flogging is humiliating and painful, it is clearly a much easier and cheaper way of locking up a criminal rather than putting them in prison, and that we should consider bringing it back for non-violent crimes. In Jacoby’s article, "Bring Back Flogging," he talks to the readers about the flaws of today's criminal justice system and tries to persuade them to bring back flogging as a punishment for some crimes and other instances. Jacoby’s thesis is directly in his title “Bring Back Flogging”. His title is an attention grabber and it also makes the us think about his essay. He starts his essay with a knowledge on the puritans justice system, and how they dealt with criminals back in the old days.
Essay Title: “A core function of any Supreme Court is to challenge, or even strike down, legislation that the judiciary regards as incorrect. By denying the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom this function, a Supreme Court has been created in name but not in function. It would be better if no change had been made at all.” Discuss. Introduction of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court formally the House of Lords originated from the Curia Regis who was the queen’s advisors on law, and was introduced by part3 of the constitutional reform act (2005). The judicial functions of the House of Lords were assumed by the 12 lords of appeal in ordinary otherwise known as “law lords”.
Trident University Criminal Justice System Procedures (CJA 502) Summer 2010 Module 1 - Case 19 July 2010 Module 1 – Case Does the Federal Grand Jury System need to be reformed? Being that “Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone should be charged with a crime (Brenner, 2003)”, I believe the Grand Jury System to be in need of a reform. The evidence the grand juries hear, unlike a trial jury, is against the accused without allowing the accused to refute the evidence with evidence of his or her own. Other issues of concern as to why I believe in reformation of the grand jury system include: embarrassment, fear, manipulation, uphold rights, misconception, and unfairness. Illustrated statements for each aforementioned
Ryan Silva Criminal Procedures Wed 6:30-9:35 pm Differences between Due Process and Crime Control Due Process focuses more on the rights of individuals whether it be the private citizen or an alleged suspect being tried for a crime, while maximizing the government efforts to stop or prevent crime. The trick is how successfully execute both without sacrificing one for the other, One could argue that this is the liberal perspective of the crime prevention module. Supporters of this perspective want a defendant to properly go through the entire justice system from beginning to end without, including exhausting the number of appeals allowed calling this the “obstacle course” (Worral p.14). Crime Control on other hand focuses more on the prevention of crime at any cost. Could be considered the conservative approach to the crime prevention module.
After the Norman Conquest the jury system was imported to Britain. The jurors acted as witnesses and provided information about local matters, then, under Henry II, they began to deliberate on evidence produced by the parties. The judges would usually try to force the juries into convicting the defendants but in Bushell’s case (1670) the jury had the right to give a verdict accordingly to their conscience. In case R v Wang (2005) the judge directed the jury that they had to convict but the House of Lords said that it was wrong of the judge and they allowed Mr. Wang’s appeal. It is the jury to decide whether or not the defendant is guilty.
In 1679 the Habeas Corpus Act initiated the transformation of the English government. This act disallowed unlawful detention of a citizen by a monarch. The Kings and Queens of England could no longer imprison or kill a citizen without reason. Although the due process that an English citizen had to go through before being imprissond could improve, it was still a major advancement in that it at least informed the accused person of why he was being arrested. In 1689, ten years after the Habeas Corpus Act was put into place, the English Bill of Rights was adopted.
The death penalty is a very sensitive subject and with it comes different pros and cons. The argument most often discussed in support of capital punishment is that the threat of executions deters capital crimes more effectively than imprisonment. This claim is plausible, but the facts do not support it. The death penalty fails as a deterrent for several reasons. One reason is that any punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed.