Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense. Last, the prosecutions must be given by the same government entity. The federal and state government are separate sovereign entities, each entity have the power to prosecute for violations of their laws. This leads into the first question, “..why under certain circumstances a state trial and a federal trial may be held for the murder of the same person without violating the double jeopardy clause..” This answer is found within the dual sovereign doctrine. It states that the Constitution forbids being placed twice for the same crime, you cannot be placed in double jeopardy by the same sovereign, by the same government.
Under such sentencing, the juvenile court imposes a sentence that blends a juvenile disposition and an adult sentence for certain serious youthful offenders. Only some states in the U.S. follow Juvenile Blended Sentencing. In states that allow their juvenile courts to impose blended sentences, detailed descriptions of procedures, standards, burdens of proof, and threshold offense and minimum age requirements are provided.” (USLegal.com, 2013) As with any new type of endeavor or the new installation of a new law, there will be successes and failures because we are human and we make mistakes. Within the following paragraphs I will discuss examples of successes and failures in the juvenile justice system involving blended juvenile sentencing. Up first we have the
The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy. Whether Armington is guilty or not guilty in the criminal trial Jennings can bring a civil suit against Armington to recover damages. Jennings was injured during the crime so he has the right to pursue a civil case to cover his injury. References Lectlaw.com (1995-2012). Double Jeopardy.
They may, of course, be permitted to engage in certain authorized conduct that would be a crime if committed by regular citizens (such as the use of deadly force in appropriate circumstances). ● Civil lawsuits against government officials—the police, mainly—can be filed when neither the exclusionary rule nor other criminal remedies apply. Section 1983 litigation requires the plaintiff to show that a constitutional rights violation was committed by an official acting under color of state law. Section 1983 lawsuits can be filed against individual police officers, supervisors,
For example, the ever-changing law on how discrimination went from sanctioning segregation to dissolving segregation illustrates how adaptable common law is. This law also derives its basis from these court proceedings called precedents to guide cases based on past rulings. The one disadvantage of common law is how cases will surmise. As Rogers (2012) attests, “even the best judicial minds often disagree, based at least in part on their judicial philosophy and political ideology” (Section 1.1). Depending on each of the judge’s beliefs, cases can go in any direction from their analysis.
But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
The contrast to the is the Due Process Model in which is directed to the people of society and the rights, liberties and far justice for all, in which people are worried it limits the power that that state and federal government has on the proceedings in the criminal court system. The Crime Control Model has different priorities by look more towards the state and federal governments to protect society and does not care of the individual liberties. The Due Process model and The Crime Control Model are two different ways that people view the criminal court system. Each side has it supporters and can raise a valid argument as to which one works and to which one does not
Nevertheless, when the wholesale transfer to criminal court of various classes of juvenile offenders that are defined solely by the charged offense starts to become the rule rather than the exception, we need to stop and take stock of what we are doing. I say this because this represents a fundamental challenge to the developmental premise on which the juvenile court was founded that adolescents and adults are different in ways that warrant their differential treatment under the law. Even though juveniles have different psychological thoughts they should still be trialed as adults because they are considered delinquents and I believe if they commit the crimes they should be trialed as any other adult would be. Juveniles sometimes
The very nature of police of criminal investigation in and of itself fosters and causes police discretion. The biggest advantages of police discretion is the interpretation of the law. Running Header: Police Discretion 3 Criminal law “has attempted to establish those forms of conduct which its members desire to be declared criminal” (Goldstein 1977). These laws are so many time written in very broad terms that vaguely define crimes which leaves the individual officer to decide if the criminal activity they are investigating meets the elements of the criminal code and to which extent. The written law simply does not cover all aspects of behavior that police officers will encounter (Wortley, 2003).
This tells us that civil law is for individual interest while criminal law is for public interest. It is not only the name that differs from the two categories of civil law and criminal law, the way of reaching a clear cut judgment is also relevant. In presenting evidence to indicate the defendant to be guilty has to be “clear and convincing evidence” and in criminal cases the substantial amount of evidence according to the same source has to be “Beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to prove the defendant to be guilty. Civil cases brought to court under this category are usually associated with personal disputes that can be sorted out with payments. Cases that are usually brought to court for civil law related matters are like copyright infringements, debt, evictions, partnership and inheritance disputes (under £30,00 dealt with at county court, any amount over £50,000 is sent straight to High Court) and other common complaints.