Violence and Riots in August 2011 - Essay Example

? Law essay Introduction Following David Cameron’s ment on the violence and riots that occurred during August was that. The riots led to destruction of property and violence across parts of Britain and majorly in London. The nature of riots has always been contentious when it comes to the law. It is the right of the people to protest against any form of social injustice. However, in most occasions, protests always turn violent and they lead to riots when criminal gangs exploit the opportunity to vandalize and steal from people. Five people lost their lives and more than 2000 people were arrested. The strikes were as a result of the death of Mike Duggan. After the strike, David Cameron told parliament that “We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people's lives hell and we will fight back hard....you can expect to go to prison". It is important to understand the essence of David Cameron’s statement in relation to law when it comes to crime and punishment. Crime has inhabited the changing world. The speed at with which the world changes echoes the rate with which criminology as a subject also changes. The increased cases of crime can be attributed to changes in social control, and it can also be attributed to changes in social life. Cultural, political, and economic factors contribute to the increased rise in crime. Criminology as a study of crime attempts to provide solutions to crime, crime control, and criminals (Farmer, 2000). The law refers to a scheme of rules and regulations, which are put by an institution. The main intention of the law is normally to state rules and regulations, which are to be used to maintain order in a society and govern conduct. In today’s world, laws are created and enforced by governments. This set of rules and regulations can normally be referred to as codified laws. These are different from the other rules and regulations set by certain religions and societies. In codified law, the courts are normally concerned mainly with, civil laws, and criminal law. Civil laws refer to those rules and regulations that are normally put to control grievances and transactions of citizens. However, criminal law is normally concerned with the setting of rules and regulations, which govern acts that may be harmful to society. In this instance, prosecution is normally not pursued by an individual, but the state. Criminal law tends to define crime, and it also attempts to illustrate the possible punishments, for any individual found committing such offences. Criminal law is considered valid only if it considers the factors mentioned. Criminal justice as a topic is normally concerned with the enforcement of criminal law (Fletcher, 1998). Criminal justice is normally categorized into three parts namely; the legislative, the courts, and corrections. These separate agencies normally work in unison, under the law so as to ensure law and order is maintained in the society (Fletcher, 2000). The first encounters a person who has committed crime normally has, is an encounter with the police. The police are normally responsible for law enforcement. They normally investigate the criminal after which they make arrests only if the person is found to be guilty. There are instances where a suspect can normally be dangerous to the nation as a whole, in such instances the law enforcement agency of a nation is normally required to intervene. If the criminal is found to have committed an offence, legal coercion is normally used to affect social and public order. The main role of the police is normally to ensure peace, and they also enforce criminal law based on their jurisdiction. They are also normally involved with the maintenance of order, and they also ensure the provision of services (Gorr, Harwood, 1992). The other category of criminal justice is the courts of law. It is in the courts that justice is normally issued, and disputes are also settled. The court setting normally comprises a number of prominent people; these may include both the professional individuals, and the non-professional individuals. The professional individuals include the prosecutor, the judge, and the defense attorney. The judge is normally responsible for the administration of legal proceedings that normally give a final decision towards the disposition of a case (Hyman, 2005). The adversarial system normally has the responsibility of deciding whether a person is guilty or innocent. In this instance, two parties are normally required to argue out the case before issuing their verdict. The case is then normally decided in favor of the individual who offers the most compelling argument according to the law (Sterling, 2000). The other individual in court is the lawyer, who normally has the responsibility of charging a person found to have committed a crime. The lawyer normally has the responsibility of the lawyer to explain to the court what crime the person being charged has committed. He is also required to give details of any evidence which incriminate the criminal. The other person in court is the plaintiff, who also serves the same purpose as the lawyer, of bringing the accused before the court. However, the plaintiff is normally different from the lawyer in that, the lawyer is normally responsible for making accusations in place of the state in a criminal proceeding. However, the plaintiff is normally on the complaining side in a civil proceeding (Jerome, 1960). The other professional in a court is normally the defense attorney, who normally has the role of counseling the accused on a legal proceeding. His main role is normally to offer advice to the concerning certain strategies. The accused is also normally allowed to testify, or to demand a jury trial in certain instances. The defense attorney is normally required to represent the interest of the client. He is also normally required to provide evidentiary issues. He ensures that the prosecution proves that the accused is guilty. He is normally allowed to challenge the evidence provided by the prosecution, and he may also provide exceptional evidence concerning the client (Glanville, 1983). The final decision as to whether the criminal is guilty or innocent is normally a responsibility of the judges, this normally depends on the laws of jurisdiction. In certain instances the judges are normally required to give a unanimous decision, however, in other instances, a majority vote from the judges is normally used. This decision in certain countries may normally rely on the level of court, the state, and agreements between the defending and prosecuting parties (Gad, 2010). Certain cases may not normally require trial, for instance people being charged with a gang attack. If people involved in a gang attack confess their guilt, then judgment is normally rendered quickly. Certain countries normally allow plea bargaining, an incident in which the accused is normally allowed to plead guilty. The accused may also plead not to be guilty and in such an instance, the court may normally reduce punishment, or they may also accept a diversion Programme. Such instances normally occur in cases in which the criminal case is weak, or it may also occur if the accused accepts to cooperate on condition that he reports the other criminals who were with him during the crime (Hart, 1968). The reduction of sentences is normally taken by the state as a reward as the state is normally spared of the extra expenses that would have been incurred. However, the act of plea bargaining is not normally accepted by most nations. A disadvantage of plea bargaining is that it can normally push innocent individuals to plead guilty in an attempt to evade harsh punishment (Walker, 1992). Prejudice by the lawyers tends to cause destruction to the court’s credibility. People have always argued that deceitful rules concerning the courtroom conduct normally restrict a layman’s ability to take part. This normally results to the reduction of the legal process, resulting to a battle between the lawyers. This problem is normally seen to arise in instances where the lawyer acts in a substandard manner. The court system is normally in a position to be manipulated by the prosecution attorney and the defense. In certain instances, justice is normally denied (Wolfgang, 1990). The corrections are also a component of criminal law that helps in overcoming such instances as gang raids. The prison is normally the main component of the correction. This is normally the next step from the court after the accused has been proved guilty for committing an offense. The criminal is normally referred to the correctional authorities. It is in these correctional centers that punishment is normally administered to the offender. History shows that long ago, exiles were used as correctional centers for criminals (Wolfgang, 1990). In today’s world, the most preferred correctional authority is the prison. After trial, the accused is normally taken to prison where they may be detained for a given duration. The prisons have always served as detention centers for the accused after trial. Jails are also normally used in certain instances, for the containment of the accused. The prisons are normally established to ensure criminals reform (Garland, 2002). People involved in such crime as theft are normally sent to prison for different purposes. It is evident that the incarceration of such criminals in prison normally separates them from the public. This is seen to be an advantage as it normally prevents them from engaging in more crime. For instance, the arrest of thugs is likely to reduce the incidents of theft in an area. The prisons also normally offer thugs a chance to rehabilitate. Certain prisons normally offer education and different forms of training to the criminals. This is normally advantageous to the criminal as learning a vacation, normally enables such people as thugs to earn a legitimate living when they go back to the society. Certain prisons normally cooperate with religious institutions, the main intention for such cooperation, is normally to instill the criminals with certain ethics, and also to instill some sense of morality to the prisoner. Certain prisons may normally release a prisoner before he completes his sentence; this is normally referred to as a parole. In such an instance, though the criminal is out of prison, certain restrictions may be imposed on him, which are greater compared to those of a criminal on probation (Garland, 2002). Together with prisons as correctional centers, certain forms of punishments can normally be imposed on a criminal. These normally range from monetary fines; these are normally paid to the victims, or they may be paid to the state as a form of payment for the crime committed. Such people as thugs may be put on house arrest or probation. This normally limits the individual’s mobility, and, as a result, it is normally seen to reduce the person’s ability to commit more crime such as theft. The public and society as a whole can normally contribute to the reparation of a person who has committed such an offense as theft (Farmer, 2000). Execution is also another aspect of criminal justice. Certain countries normally use executions for political control, and it is also normally used on criminals who commit mere minor offences. However, there are countries that normally reserve executions for exceptionally serious offences such as theft (Farmer, 2000). Criminal law refers to another section of the law that also relates to crime. Criminal law normally concentrates on defining unwanted conduct such as theft in a given society. It is normally a responsibility of criminal law to curb such crime that is likely to endanger the welfare and the safety of the people. Criminal law also tends to dictate the form of punishment that can normally be imposed on such criminals who break the law. This branch of law is normally different from civil law that concentrates more on the resolution of disputes, than in punishing such offences as theft (Sterling, 2000). There are normally serious consequences accompanying the failure to abide by the rules and regulations set in criminal law. In this branch of law, every crime normally has its own criminal elements. For serious crimes, for example, those involving theft, serious punishments are normally imposed on the offenders. In criminal law, physical punishment such as canning is normally imposed on the offenders. However, most countries are normally against this form of punishment. To accompany these punishments, the offenders are normally incarcerated in prison. It is in prison that the offenders are normally put on punishment depending on the jurisdiction. As a form of punishment, the duration of the incarceration may normally vary ranging from a day to life. It is in serious offences that government supervision is normally imposed; this include house arrests, where thee offender is normally given a set of rules to accompany the probation regimen. According to criminal law fines may be imposed on the offenders, whereby money or property of the offender may be taken (Sterling, 2000). In the enforcement of criminal law by punishment, certain objectives are normally taken into consideration. These objectives include; deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restitution. The jurisdictions accompanying these punishments normally differ on the value. In the case of retribution, the criminal is normally exposed to some form of suffering. The main intention in this case is normally to ensure the person undergoes suffering. Criminals, on the other hand, normally take advantage of this form of punishment, and as a result, they put fellow criminals’ trough suffering (Fletcher, 1998). The other objective in criminal law is deterrence; in this category there is individual deterrence, which is normally intended to target the offender. In this instance, sufficient penalty is normally imposed on the criminal so as to discourage the criminal act. However, the other form of deterrence normally targets the society in general. In this case, a penalty is normally put imposed on the offenders, so as to discourage such people from committing such acts (Fletcher, 1998). Incapacitation is also another objective under criminal law; it is normally intended to keep the criminals from the society. The main intention for this is normally to protect the public from the misconduct of the criminals. An example of a place where incapacitation is executed is the prison. Death penalties have also acted as forms of incapacitation (Hyman, 2005). The other objective of criminal law is rehabilitation, which normally aims at transforming the criminal to becoming a beneficial member of the society. It is normally intended at preventing future offences, convincing the criminal that his deeds were wrong. Restitution is seen to be the other objective of criminal law; it is normally viewed as a victim oriented form of punishment. The main aim is normally to enhance repair using the state authority. For instance, any harm inflicted on the victim by the thugs may be compensated by the criminals (Hyman, 2005). Conclusion From the above discussion, it is clear that the acts of the rioters in august 2011 were criminal in nature. The statement by David Cameron was likely meant to mean that the criminal gangs and the rioters who had been identified were liable for punishment and sentencing. However, it is important to understand the essence of punishing the rioters. Prison plays a major role in rehabilitating criminals and hence by sentencing the rioters, the justice system would ensure that they have a chance to be rehabilitated into better citizens. References Barzilai, Gad (2010). The Attorney General and the State Prosecutor-Is Institutional Separation Warrented?. The Israel Democracy Institute Farmer, Lindsay (2000). "Reconstructing the English Codification Debate: The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-45". Law and History Review 18 (2). Fletcher, George P. (1998). Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. Fletcher, George P. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. Garland, David (2002). "Of Crimes and Criminals". In Maguire, Mike, Rod Morgan, Robert Gorr, Michael, Sterling Harwood, eds. (1992). Controversies in Criminal Law. Westview Press. Gross, Hyman (2005, reissue). A Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. Harwood, Sterling (2000, formerly 1996). "Is Mercy Inherently Unjust?". Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations. Wadsworth Publishing Co., formerly Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Hall, Jerome (1960). General Principles of Criminal Law. Lexis Law Pub. Hart, H.L.A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford University Press. Reiner. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd edition. Oxford University Press. pp. 20. Williams, Glanville (1983). Textbook of Criminal Law. Stevens & Sons. ISBN 0-420468609. Walker, Samuel (1992). "Origins of the Contemporary Criminal Justice Paradigm: The American Bar Foundation Survey, 1953-1969". Justice Quarterly 9 (1). Wolfgang, Marvin (1990). "Crime and Punishment in Renaissance Florence". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University) 81 (3): 567–84. Bagaric, M. 2001. Punishment and Sentencing: A Rational Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis Group Bull, M. 2009. Punishment & Sentencing: Risk, Rehabilitation and Restitution. Auckland: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand, Polzer, K. L. 2002. Issues in Punishment and Sentencing: A Multiple Venue Analysis. Texas: The University of Texas at Dallas Cullen, F T. 2002. “Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs.” In Crime:Public Policies for Crime Control, edited by James Q. Wilson and Joan Peter-silia. Oakland, CA: ICS Press Drago, F., Galbiati, R. and Vertova, P. 2009. The Deterrent Effects of Prison: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Journal of Political Economy 117(2):257–78. Harcourt, B. E. 2006. From the Asylum to the Prison: Rethinking the Incarceration Revolution Texas Law Review 84(7):1751–86. Harer, M. D. 1994. Recidivism among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons. Katz, L., Levitt, S D., and Shustorovich. E. 2003. Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence. American Law and Economics Review 5(2):318–43 Lipsey, M W., and Cullen. F.T. 2007. The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3:297–320 Kraus, J. 1974. A Comparison of Corrective Effects of Probation and Detention on Male Juvenile Offenders British Journal of Criminology14(1):49–62 Read More