If Joe Justice wants to get the deal done with Jim Lawbreaker, what options does he have in terms of bringing charges against him? I am not sure about the options the Joe Justice has regarding making a deal with Jim Lawbreaker, I think that the one of the charges would be accessory to commit a crime, and since he wasn’t the main character in the robbery and I think that in order to get to the main culprit the deal that Jim Lawbreaker attorney is offering is fair since the results of the lab tests are incomplete and a statement from Jim will help the prosecutor make sure that Martin goes to jail for the crime. The evidence does not place Lawbreaker on the scene and no witnesses can place him there either. 2. Does Joe Justice have enough evidence to take a case against Slick Martin to grand
Questions such as the examples given demonstrate the importance of professionalism in the law enforcement field and how it affects real life scenarios. By researching in nearby county prosecutor’s officers, public defender’s office and even the mayor’s office can give answer to the question. There are a few cases throughout history that are examples of the unprofessionalism of law enforcement. Those cases include Miranda v. Arizona (the police officers never made the defendant aware of his rights), Weeks v. U.S. (an officer enters a home without a search warrant), and Katz v. U.S. (Placing a wiretap on a public phone violates the Fourth
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
Describe and evaluate factors affecting jury decision making. Jury decision making involves the process of twelve randomly selected members of the public, to decide upon the verdict whether a criminal is either guilty or not guilty for their previous actions that has resulted in them being in this situation. The jury can either be all male or all female or mixed. A person will know if they are to be part of a jury as they will receive a summons through the post informing them of their duty. In the United Kingdom, to be part of a jury you must be in between the ages of 18 and 70 and be registered on the electoral roll.
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.
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
CONS: * There are no other options available to you if your found guilty or plead guilty no judge can offer a suspended sentence or probation you are required by law to serve the specific amount of time. * It cost alot of money to house offenders in prisons and jails if offenders who got the determinate sentence could be released early this would free up millions of dollars for the state. Indeterminate Sentence PROS: * This can encourage offenders to act right and follow rules while incarcerated because they know that by doing this it can help in getting a early release date. * Empowers judges and parole boards to make sure that offenders that still seem to be a risk to the public remains incarcerated. * Individualizing sentencing & release decisions.
Sammi Hall CJL-2130-18 Week 1 Individual work The rationale used to address the question/issue posted. Use another country to Determine the truth in a criminal proceeding. Describe how it differs from American jury System. Which do you feel superior? Why?
Any defendant has a right to ‘trial by one’s peers,’ the jury system supports this right as its members are a random selection of Australian citizens. The jury system ensures justice by ‘injecting common sense into a legal system otherwise dominated by lawyers’ (Horan, Dr. Jacqueline 2012), this community input helps to ensure that citizens feel that laws are developed by the people and for the people as it’s an important check against state power. However, with the rising complexity of evidence being shown in court, many people are beginning to feel that insufficient intellect is involved with juries (Horan, Dr. Jacqueline 2012). Lack of criminal or law based training as well as insufficient intellect leads to confusing and minimal understanding of cases and basic rules of law (Farouque, Farah. 2012).
How can he help it?” Judges in the UK do develop the law through both the operation of the doctrine of judicial precedent and statutory interpretation. In precedent, judges were thought to not make new law. However, it is now recognised that they do use precedent to create new law or extent old principles in various areas. In criminal law, judges have played a major role in developing the law on intention (Vickers 1957 – intention for murder includes intention to cause GBH, later was confirmed in Cunningham 1982; or Moloney 1985, Nedrick 1986 and Woolin 1998 and the law on foresight of consequences in relation with intention). Judicial decisions have also effectively created new crime as in Shaw v. DPP (1962) – offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, or R v. R (1991) – rape within marriage is a crime.