Law and Social Order. Criminal justice in Canada - Essay Example

Task Law and Social Order Criminal justice is an arrangement of practices that are aimed at maintaining social control and preventing crime. It also involves implementation of programs to deter criminal activities and setting up other programs for punishment of those who break or violate the law. In Canada, the criminal justice system stabilizes the objectives of crime control, prevention and protection of citizens’ rights (Grossman & Roberts, 15). The general justice system consists of three branches; legislative, adjudications, and finally corrections. The above three branches are very important in the criminal justice system, the legislative branch deals with the process of making laws that govern the country and assist In the implementation, of justice, in the country. While the adjudications part is where judgments are passed, and justice is accomplished, the corrections include jails and other probation facilities. Offenders are taken to the places whenever they are found guilty, one stays in the correctional facilities depending on the magnitude of one’s case. The police enhance the activities of criminal justice systems; they are the first individuals who are contacted when citizens have any problems. The courts serve as avenues where disputes are settled and whomever, the judge in this case passes judgment and has the final say in the court. The criminal justice system is obliged to main functions, which all aim at protecting the society. It aims at controlling crime, preventing criminal activities from occurring now and then and finally maintaining justice In line with the laid down rules or the constitution (Klein, 695). The society makes it task of the institutions of the criminal justice system to control, prevent crime and maintenance of justice; law enforcement, courts and corrections. The police are responsible for law enforcement at both local and state levels. Discretion is judgment and judgment is exercised by applying ethics and values to facts. Actors in the criminal justice system substitute their judgments for formal statutory punishments in order to influence criminal justice system by the means. It allows judges to create their own judgments depending on their own views even if these judgments are not in line with the rule of law. Criminal trials in Canada are done either before the judge alone or before the judge and jury. Although discretion is especially important in the criminal justice system, it can be abused. Some judgments are made wrongly, and the victims end up being charged for the crimes they did not commit. This is very common in the many courts where the judge makes a judgment without proper evidence and from hearsays. The police can abuse discretion by arresting a suspected criminal and putting them in jail for a crime not committed (Canadian Bar Association, 5). Although they are aimed at protecting the people of the community, they should have good evidence before making a claim. Law enforcers sometimes term investigations as a waste of time and money and the suspects are pushed to courts to be punished. The criminal justice system utilizes discretion to lessen the pressures they have in their system. The agencies are allowed to make decisions depending on the weight of the crime convicted; most of them are placed on home correction in order to avoid the congestion of jails and other correctional facilities. Therefore, most of the times discretionary decisions are based on the limitation of resources. However, not all discretionary decisions are based on this; they can also be based on politics, for example, police crackdown activities in search of something. Some people, however, argue that the use of discretion in the criminal justice system is not fair as some cases are withdrawn without a proper basis. They say that equality should be observed in the passing of judgments and that all cases should be treated in the same manner. This should not be the case because one cannot compare drunkenness while driving and a person who has been arrested because of murder and rape. Discretion is a major part of the police force in any country including Canada, the police can decide whether to arrest an individual, carry out investigations, whether to charge or to grant bail to the suspect. Discretion is defined as the ability to make unrestrained choices concerning the suitable penalties for the defendant’s unlawful ways. All these decisions lie on the police side, and he is supposed to make a decision on his own. He can prefer not to go to the courts and can put the suspect on home probation. There are many explanations behind the process of exercising discretion in the police force, these include; first, no legislature has succeeded in formulating laws that include all conduct intended to be made criminal and which exclude all other conduct. Second, discretion is necessary because of limited resources and the police are few in number. Third, the failure to get rid of weakly drafted legislation. Fourth, the enforcement of law in a strict manner would have unpleasant results (Canadian Bar Association, 4). Police discretion is important in solving the everyday problems, especially in cases concerning juveniles and women. Discretion varies directly with the significance of the offence; example rape is a more serious offence as compared to theft. Less discretion is practiced in cases that involve serious offences such as manslaughter, attempted murder, drug trafficking and robbery with violence. In Canada, where juveniles or youth are involved, the take informal actions as a form of punishment such as community based intervention programs, social services or even take the youth to the police station for questioning and thereafter release them. Decision making by the Canadian police force is controlled by the common law, statutes and case law. In ordinary law, the Canadian police forces have the duty to enforce the law, but they do not have the authority to charge any individual. The Canadian charter rights and freedoms of the criminal limit the use of discretion that the police would have used on the accused persons. The supreme court of Canada is the final court of appeal in the land; it is, therefore, the highest court in the country. The judgments made in the Supreme Court are the final judgments. Parties must apply to the court for appeal although some cases are obviously accepted for appeals, for example, death sentences. The art of judging has been described as the art of making discrete decisions among competing courses of action. Judges are supposed to have discretion in order to administer justice uniformly and fairly. The judicial system assigns the judges to make sound decisions and sound judgments. Discretion is, therefore, a representation of equity in the merged judicial system. According to Klein, Judicial discretion facilitates flexibility, and guarantees a more individualized justice, and this is entirely dependable on with equity’s practice. However, there is a considerable dissimilarity involving equity and discretion; discretion is implemented from within a region of possibilities. A judge with discretion may have many options within that structure, but the application of judicial authority is primarily a choice. Equity is not similarly controlled. According to a study by her majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Discretion in prosecution decisions involves the feature of diversion, in which an alternative manner of punishment-informal is used in place of the formal way of dealing with cases by going to courts (Grossman & Roberts, 67). In practice, this discretion is of importance as it avoids the clogging of formal institutions and helps get rid of the negative perception on the police by the citizens. In addition, out of court disposals provide an easier means of dealing with less severe offences giving the police time to solve the more serious cases. This is the main reason why the Supreme Court has full support of the discretion. They have, therefore, given the criminal justice system agencies power of discretion (Goff). However, discretion has faced several controversies in the recent past. It has its own disadvantages and dangers. These include, unequal treatment, use of political influence to have the charges dropped, potential of corruption and finally if there is a perception of unequal treatment, it could lead to less adherence to the law. Criminals and suspects will always refer to another case of the same degree that was no treated in the same way. The issue of corruption has become rampant in the criminal justice system. People bribe to have their charges dropped; others use the influence of their relatives or friends in the government to have their cases dropped. People have, therefore, lost confidence in the criminal justice system because of the aspect of ‘unfairness’. Discretion has brought about these weaknesses in the judicial system. Criminal justice system should seek to improve on community involvement by addressing local concerns on discretion. It, therefore, has its advantages and disadvantages, though its advantages outweigh the disadvantages or drawbacks. Discretion has been a significant Supreme Court decision that has allowed a change in criminal law and respite in criminal procedures. Justice outside the courts should be handled with proper heed to avoid conflicts with the public; it should provide valid reasons as to why the approach was taken. Works Cited Bill C-15- Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Amendments. National criminal law section, Canadian Bar Association, 2009. Pp 4-5. Web. November 5, 2011. Exercising Discretion: The Gateway to Justice. A study by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate on cautions, penalty notices for disorder and restorative justice. 2011. Web. November 5, 2011. Grossman, Michelle & Roberts, Julian. Criminal Justice in Canada: A Reader (4 Ed). New York: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Pp. 15-67. Goff, Collin. Criminal Justice in Canada. Canada: Nelson Education Limited, 2007. Print. Klein, Susan R. The Return of Federal Judicial Discretion in Criminal Sentencing, 39. Valparaiso University Law Review. Pp 693-740, (2005). Web. November 5, 2011. Read More