Is the Criminal Justice System Fair and Functional - Assignment Example

?Criminal Justice System in the UK Question Criminal Liability In the UK, criminal law is only effective if liability is proved. Liability in criminal law is meant to ensure that it is proved that the defendant committed a guilty act in a state of guilty mind. Two factors are therefore considered in validating liability in criminal law cases, that is, a guilty act and a guilty state of mind (Tufal n.d). These two elements are presented by the mens rea and actus reus principles. Actus Reus This is considered to be the physical element of a crime. For any act to be considered a crime, its actus reus must be shown. Actus reus can be in any of the following forms: “An act, or a failure to act (an omission), or a state of affairs” (Challenge College 2013, p. 2). In the first form above, an act, it must be shown that an act committed violates the law and if this cannot be shown then there cannot be any liability. For instance, in the crime of murder the actus reus is the unlawful killing of a person. Another way of assigning liability is through showing that an undesirable or otherwise incident took place because of a failure to act. The case of Pittwood (1902) bests illustrates how a failure to act may result in criminal liability (Challenge College 2013, p. 8). Lastly, crime liability can be proved through showing the state of affairs. Proof of a state of affairs that is declared wrong is enough to assign crime liability. Mens Rea This is another condition which has to be proven for a person to be considered liable for a crime committed. Mens rea is considered to be a state of mind in which a person is fully aware of the consequences of his actions thus the doer is assumed to have an intention of the end result of whatever he or she does. There are two ways in which mens rea is assessed in England and Wales – subjectivism and objectivism. In subjectivism, a case is weighed on what the defendant “foresaw, believed or intended” (Furey 2010, p. 1), while in objectivism a case is weighed on what a hypothetical reasonable person would have foreseen. These two methods of assessing mens rea have been discussed in a negative light with respect to not affording justice to defendants. Subjectivism method has been viewed to be too narrow by placing a high degree of moral culpability on the defendant. On the other hand, objectivism is thought to be too broad because it fails to consider defendants with lower than average IQ, that is, those who lack the capacity to reason as an average person would (Furey 2010, p. 1). An illustration of mens rea application can be seen in the case of R v Molony (1985) AC 905 whereby the defendant shot his step father dead but was acquitted of murder charges and instead charged with manslaughter. The intention to shoot was found not to be connected to killing (e-Law Resources 2013). Question 2: The Criminal Justice System Its function The criminal justice system is meant to ensure that every person under the law has access to justice. Having access to justice means being punished for wrongs accomplished, giving protection to those who are innocent and making it possible for those convicted of wrongs to stop offending. The system aims at “delivering an efficient, effective, accountable and fair justice process for the public” (Garside 2013, p. 1). It is further noted that the system must sieve among potential, alleged and actual criminal activities and ensure that treatment adjudicated on persons is rightful. Its Working The criminal justice system is composed of many agencies which work in unity to ensure that justice is availed to all. The agencies involved in this system include “the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the courts and the National Offender Management Service” (Criminal Justice System 2013, p. 1). The three government departments which oversee the criminal justice system are “the Ministry of Justice, the Home office and the Attorney General’s Office” (Criminal Justice System 2013, p. 1). The Ministry of Justice is in charge of the courts, prisons, probation services and attendance centres. Issues which fall under this department include “criminal, civil and family justice, democracy, rights and the constitution” (Crown Prosecution Service 2013, p. 1). The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the government and as well is in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (Crown Prosecution Service 2013, p. 1). The Home Office is in charge of “immigration and passports, drugs policy, crime, counter-terrorism and police” (Crown Prosecution Service 2013, p. 1). Its Strengths The criminal justice system has various divisions which makes it possible to deal with various issues which touch on justice in comprehensive ways. For instance, the Serious Fraud Office deals with cases which involve fraud complex issues and which take a long time to solve. The divisions within the criminal justice system help to ensure that quality work is done within the system by assigning roles to units which are specialized to handle such roles and tasks. The criminal justice system is also quite rich with various acts having existed for such a long time and therefore can be said to deliver justice in a comprehensive manner (Herbert 2012, p. 5). Its Weaknesses Nick Herbert, the minister of State for policing and criminal justice, has noted a number of weaknesses within the criminal justice system which require corrections. The first weakness noted is the unnecessary delays which are frequently tolerated by the criminal justice system. Another weakness noted is that the public views the system as remote and quite complex. This will lead the public to gradually lose trust in the system. The system also needs to be modernised such that it directly addresses the interests of the public rather than operating at its own interest. Questions of whether justice is being truly delivered have been raised. For instance, the increase in the use of out-of-court sanctions has raised eyebrows in reference to their effectiveness (Herbert 2012, p. 28). Question 3: Treatment of women and ethnic minorities by the CJS Treatment of women by the CJS A number of issues have been raised with the manner in which women are treated by the criminal justice system. Arguing from the figures released by the Ministry of Justice for this year, Prison Reform Trust notes that women imprisonment should be reduced. The trust notes that there is some form of injustice being committed in reference to imprisonment of women. The trust has singled out three factors which show the injustice meted on women. These factors are: almost half of the women in prison are there because of committing offences related to assisting someone in drug use, women in prison are twice likely to be suffering from depression than men, and women who are depressed while in prison are more likely to be reconvicted after release. These arguments show that the criminal justice system is doing little to ensure that prisoners are helped to reform. If anything, the situation seems to be aggravated. This then shows that the criminal justice system is failing women (Prison Trust Reform 2013, p. 1). It has been shown that community solutions that address women’s offending have been found to work better than prisons. A majority of the women in prison are there for non-violent crimes and most have young children. The proposal by Prison Trust Reform that women be significantly subjected to community solutions for their offenses is logical and worth supporting. This will help women to undergo less stresses and help their family members especially their young children. Treatment of ethnic minorities by the CJS It has been repeatedly shown that the ethnic minorities are unfairly treated by the criminal justice system. It seems change to rectify this discrepancy will take some time since these accusations have been aired all through the last decade (Dodd 2000; Gould 2002; ESRC 2009) up to the very recent time (ESRC 2010). The basis for the accusation has largely remained the same over time. It is argued that in the criminal justice system, the higher ranks are exclusively held by whites. For instance, in the police it is only very few persons from ethnic minorities who manage to rise to the rank of superintendent. In the court system, it is pointed that top judges are predominantly white. Unfortunately, the prisons are the only place where ethnic minority are overrepresented (ESRC 2010). It has been argued that even the youth justice system has been plagued with the same issues whereby youths of ethnic minorities are subjected to harsher treatment than white youths. A very classical example of a bad treatment of ethnic minority is the sluggish manner in which the Stepehen Lawrence case was treated. Though justice was finally delivered in 2012, the crime had been committed in 1993 and it took the parents of Stephen five years of campaign to have the home secretary initiate a judicial inquiry (Travis 2013). There is a need to implement changes in the criminal justice system by allowing more ethnic minority persons to rise up through the ranks. Cases of unfair treatment of ethnic minorities should also be properly investigated and accordingly punished. This will help to change the criminal justice system especially the police. References Challenge College 2013, Actus Reus. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. Criminal Justice System 2013, How it works. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. Crown Prosecution Service 2013, The criminal Justice System. Available from: . [14 may 2013]. Dodd, V 2000, ‘Racism ‘rife in justice system’’, The Guardian 20 March. Available from . [14 may 2013] e-Law Resources 2013, R v Molony [1985] AC 905 House of Lords. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. ESRC 2009, Ethnic minority young people: different treatment in the youth justice system. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. ESRC 2010, UK youth justice system treats ethnic groups differently. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. Furey, R 2010, A consistent Approach to Assessing Mens Rea in the Criminal Law of England and Wales. Available from: . [14 March 2013]. Garside, R 2013, The purpose of the criminal justice system. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. Gould, P 2002, ‘Changing Face of Justice’, BBC Available from . [14 May 2013] Herbert, N 2012, Swift and Sure Justice: The Government’s Plans for Reform of the Criminal Justice System. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. Prison Reform Trust 2013, Soroptimists call on MPS and Peers to reduce women’s imprisonment. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. Travis, A 2013, ‘Stephen Lawrence: how his murder changed the legal landscape’, The Guardian 22 April. Available from . [14 May 2013]. Tufal, A n.d., Principles of criminal liability. Available from: . [14 May 2013]. Read More