It is difficult to hold prosecutors accountable for acts of misconduct. Since prosecutors are often viewed as the “good guys” by the public, many times unethical, as well as illegal acts will be tolerated by the courts and criminal justice system as a whole. Prosecutorial misconduct is considered any action taken by the prosecutor in a criminal case that is against the law and/or unethical. Prosecutorial evidence can be anything from harassing witnesses on the stand, pressing unfounded charges against defendants, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, up to taking bribes. Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place.
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.
Do you prosecute that as a hate-crime, just because it might be? One group of people is now getting special treatment under the law. That sounds lot like discrimination to me, which isn't how this country is supposed to work. Whatever happened to equal protection under the law? Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups?
Asses the usefulness of labelling as an approach to the study of crime and deviance In the study of crime and deviance, most approaches other than Marxists, suggest that there is a difference between those who offend and those who do not, and search for key factors that lead people to offend. However, there are a group of theorist who reject this idea and instead suggest that most people commit deviant and criminal acts, but only some people are caught and stigmatised for it. Although the labelling theory is quite prominent in the study of crime and deviance, there are endorsers and criticisers who both give valid accounts to why this theory should be, or not be taken as a valid theory. Labelling theory suggests that deviancy is a social process usually related to power differences but it doesn't explain the causes of crime. It does however explain why some people or actions are described as deviant, and can help in understanding crime and deviance.
There is little question that the public leans toward a punishment that is harsher for those who commit acts of armed robber. The public would the people are who innocent and inevitably be the victims who would be the targets for those criminals. The public would be in full support of a motion that punishes those who perform these acts more harshly than they are being punished now in the hopes that the new legislation would act as deterrence. It has been a common theory that harsher punishments would indeed be effective as deterrents to such acts of deviance as armed robbery. 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.
Criminal Wrong Doings Jennifer Hyler CRJ 201 Ginger Jarvis July 24, 2011 Criminal Wrong Doings The criminal laws control criminal acts and channel human behaviors. Criminal laws also orchestrate punishments and sentences to the ones who commit wrong doings crimes towards someone’s person or personal property. A criminal law assumes that wrong doings not only damage the surrounding people, but society as well. All violators that commit a crime such as murder or rape must be punished. Criminal laws also have two written laws that are split up into two different categories.
Fault is an essential element of criminal liability. It is a concept in criminal and civil law whereby the defendant is held responsible for doing something wrong. This can be through an act or omission and can be proven through the rules of causation. The implication of being found at fault is a criminal record whose consequences on the defendant personal life are serious. However, there are some types of behaviours such as Strict Liability offences which do not require fault but the defendant is still prosecuted.
You’re not going to only have to deal with shame if you commit a crime because it doesn’t work like that anymore. There are going to be fines, restrictions, and jail time depending on the severity of the crime. There is another way in which shame can be a great thing and that is from preventing crimes. If you’re somebody who cares about their reputation and how they are looked at then you might think twice before committing a crime because you know that you’ll
The rewards can involve money or even a sense of gratification according to sociologist Jack Katz in the text book Criminal Justice in action when said “’rewards’ of crime may be sensual as well as financial. The inherent Danger, according to Katz, increases the ‘rush’ a criminal experiences on successfully committing a crime” (pg32). Not all Crimes are fun and games. They do have their costs such as probation and jail time this is because it deters the thought process in doing right from wrong. This can be found in the text Criminal Justice in Action when stated “Because crime is seen as the end result of a series of rational choices, policy makers have reasoned that severe
An accomplice should be given a sentence but the mastermind who lead the crime should be punished more and should in turn suffer more for the crime they committed. It is important that the guilty person is aware of them being worse off that before in order for the punishment to be effective. This is called experimental harm. Everybody has different triggers and how they do things. And thus the crime due to provocation is not always justified.