Criminal Justice System in England and Wales - Case Study Example

The Secretary of for the Home Office maintains that the number one objective of the criminal justice system in England and Wales is and always has been the detection and reduction of criminal activity. The Home Office always endeavored to accomplish this objective by responding to societal changes and by and ensuring that justice is delivered “on behalf of victims, defendants and the community.”1 The Home office in its White Paper presented to Parliament in July of 2002 expressed a desire to accomplish justice fairly by adapting reforms that ensure an increased number of convictions.2 On the other side of the debate about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in England and Wales, Michael Naughton argues that the Home Office’s approached is flawed in that many convictions are eventually quashed on the grounds that they are unsafe and unsatisfactory.3 Naughton is of the opinion that the suggestions for reform are primarily aimed at tipping the scales of justice in favor of the victim when in fact the statistical evidence reflects that indeed the scales are already tipped in favor of the victim.4 While acknowledging that changes are always necessary to adjust to changes in the society, Naughton charges that changes such as those suggested in the White Paper presented by the Home Office fail to address the prevalent problem of wrongful conviction with the result that more changes are imperative.5 Naughton reports that: “The Lord Chancellors Departments statistics on successful appeals against criminal conviction show that in the decade 1989-1999 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) abated over 8,470 criminal convictions - a yearly average of 770. In addition, there are around 3,500 quashed criminal convictions a year at the Crown Court for convictions obtained at the magistrates courts.”6 The Home Office’s White Paper is therefore misguided in its desire to rebalance the criminal justice system in favor of the victim. It would perhaps be more appropriate to rebalance the system so that it is fair to both sides of the pendulum.7 The White Paper is a response to an escalation in criminal activity in recent years. The rebalancing of the Criminal Justice system in favor of the victim and the ‘get tough’ on crime attitude was prevalent in Tony Blair’s interview with the Observer as reported on November 10th, 2002. Political Editor for the Observer, Kamal Ahmed reported: “Tony Blair has launched a withering attack on the failure of Britains institutions to deal with the publics fear of crime, admitting that offenders often escape punishment or receive sentences that do not fit the crime.”8 The Prime Minister, Tony Blair is quoted as saying that the public in general has lost faith in the criminal justice system and its ability to control crime. Moreover, the Prime Minister was said to be in favor of fundamental changes in the criminal justice system on an unprecedented nature. For instance it was reported that Blair advocates the admission into evidence of hearsay evidence in circumstances where it is inadmissible. Blair is also said to be in favor of bending the rules against double jeopardy with a view to permitting serious offences such as murder to be tried a second time.9 Obviously, some of the contributing factors to criminal conduct may relate to the nature of the offence committed. The actual location of the crime cannot in and of itself take responsibility for criminal and anti-social activities. Criminal conduct is a result of wider social issues such as the cumulative impact of economy, demographics and culture not merely the social culture of an isolated neighbourhood.10 A Crawford, a noted criminologist recognizes the merits of communitarianism. Crawford identifies three methods by which responsibility can be delegated among ‘the state, civil society and the market.’ They are ‘welfarism, neo-liberalism and communitarianism.’ 11 Crawford rules out new-liberalism and welfarism as being far too bureaucratic but readily subscribes to the idea of communitarianism. Communitarianism is favored by many in that it forces individuals to look at their own responsibilities to his or her communities rather than their own entitlements within the community. Criminologist A. Etzioni notes that: “not only are human beings social by nature but also . . . their sociability enhances their human and moral potential. Social thinking has to cease viewing communal attachments as cannonballs chained to inmates’ legs, needed to maintain their stability but "encumbering."…. [C]ommunal attachments and individuality go hand-in-hand, enrich one another, and are not antagonistic.”12 There are two main groups of criminological theories shaping the methods employed for the prevention of crime. Both theories are present in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. These two theories are ‘criminologies of everyday life’ and ‘the broken windows thesis’.13 According to A Garland, ‘criminologies of everyday life’ is the primary force behind ‘preventing offending’ strategies.14 The everyday life theory takes into consideration that changing social and economic conditions contribute to fluctuations in criminal activity. Routine activities affect relationships in the sense that targets are changed, offenders are motivated and guardians are absent. This is evident in a society where more women are forced to join the workforce and young children are left unsupervised. “At the same time increasing consumerism has led to a rise in suitable targets in the form of cars and electronic goods, the latter becoming progressively smaller, and more easily portable, and with a higher value to weight ratio.”15 The ‘broken windows’ theory by Wilson and Kelling16 is also an obvious influence behind the crime prevention ideals of the constantly changing dynamics of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. The ‘broken window’ theory seeks to intervene at a time when criminal and anti-social activities begin to take shape. For instance, vandalism and graffiti should be viewed as the onset of more serious criminal intent and should not be avoided. These activities should be policed. This type of police attention garners community support and with that comes community cooperation. The current tone of the reformation campaign as envisaged in Tony Blair’s interview with the Observer and the Home Office’s White Paper takes an entirely new tact in that it is retributive rather than rehabilitative in nature. Traditionally the criminal justice system in England and Wales concentrated on the balancing of interests in the community. The general approach was to supervise the offender in the community, rehabilitate offenders, implement penology guidelines that discourage recidivism, broadening of police powers, reducing fear of crime by increased police presence in communities and at the same time safeguarding the constitutional rights of an accused person.17 In order for reformation of the criminal justice system in England and Wales to meet the current needs of society to curtail criminal conduct those reforms are required to take into consideration the interests of all sectors of the criminal justice system. The victim is only one factor of significance. Jurors, judges, the police and the defendant all have significant roles and are no less important than the victim.18 Michael Naughton points out that: “A reform agenda framed in a language of putting the victim first overlooks the fact that there are many victims of the present criminal justice system. Any human system can make mistakes, and that miscarriages of justice can and do occur. But, just how many miscarriages of justice victims of the present system are there?”19 A fair and just criminal justice system cannot be fair if it is unbalanced.20 The approach taken by the Home Office in its White Paper is single minded of purpose, virtually geared toward increased convictions at a great sacrifice to the integrity of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Moreover, the Home Office expresses a belief that custodial sentences ought to be increased for the purpose of ensuring rehabilitation with a view to ultimately reducing recidivism.21 Many criminologists will and have argued that unduly longer prison sentences are punitive rather than rehabilitative in nature.22 It is unrealistic to expect the criminal justice system to accomplish fairness and trust when a penology practice fails to institute policies focused on rehabilitation and favors purely punishment theories of justice. The criminal justice system in making changes with a view to addressing societal changes and fear in the communities, proportionality must be at the forefront of all modifications.23 Although the Home Office’s White Paper purports to address proportionality by using catch phrases for the balancing of the system as adapting as system that “acquits the innocent” or “wins the trust of citizens”.24 Michael Naughton argues that instead: “…the government might think about proposing reforms that would counter the causes of the thousands of routine wrongful criminal convictions that occur each year under the present criminal justice system. These (still) include misdirection by judges which is the most common cause of routine successful appeals; unreliable confessions such as in the cases of Robert Downing, the Cardiff Newsagent three, Andrew Evans, and King and Waugh who between them spent almost a century of wrongful imprisonment based on the unreliable confessions of the vulnerable.”25 The view taken by Tony Blair is not altogether incorrect. Indeed the criminal justice system is archaic in that it is not consistent with current times. However, Blair’s suggestion that new changes should reflect favor for the victim is not receiving acceptance among the Criminal Bar Association and the Bar Council together human rights groups Liberty. In a document published jointly representatives of both the legal profession and the human rights group are of the opinion that: “…the suggestion that this exercise is about rebalancing the system in favour of the victim is misguided…we see dangers in the politicization of the debate over criminal justice.” 26 The joint statement charges that ever since the 1990s changes in the criminal justice system have been far too focused on the eroding “the rights of the accused and will lead to more innocent people being jailed.”27 Certainly people do not feel safe in a community where criminal conduct is constantly on the rise. However, people do not feel any safer when a criminal justice system makes changes is carelessly constructed in such a way that the dangers of criminalizing the innocent are dangerously increased. Elements of proportionality are more effective than imbalance in favor of any side on the proverbial scales of justice. Perhaps a more holistic approach to the criminal justice system is the best way to address the fear of crime. This approach was more clearly delineated in The Morgan Report which resulted in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.28 At the heart of this report, community safety is emphasized. The general idea is generate some feeling of community responsibility as a means of reducing fear of criminal activity. This theory of community safety requires cooperation between the various agencies within the criminal justice system and begins within local communities. This approach puts the would be criminal on notice that there is a joint effort to detect and prevent crime and represents a more effective method of reducing crime and fear of crime while at the same time preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system. Bibliography Bowers,K.J., Johnson , S.D. and Hirschfield, A. (2004). The measurement of crime prevention intensity and its impact on levels of crime. The British Journal of Criminology , 44(3), 419-440. Crawford, A. (1998) Crime Prevention and Community Safety: Politics, Policies and Practice. London: Longman Davies, M., Croall, H., and Tyrer, J. (1998) Criminal Justice: An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales. London: Longman Etzioni, A. (1997) The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic State. London: Profile Books Garland, D. (1996) ‘The limits Of The Sovereign State: Strategies Of Crime Control In Contemporary Society’ The British Journal of Criminology 36 (4), 445-71 Gilling, D. (1997) Crime Prevention: Theory, Practice and Politics. London, University College London Press Justice for All.(2002) White Paper Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Available at: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/07/17/Criminal_Justice.pdf Viewed May 7 2007 Kamal, Ahmed.(Nov. 10, 2002) Blair Pledge to Wage New Crime War. The Observer available at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,12079,837315,00.html Viewed May 8, 2007 King, M. (1981) The framework of criminal justice. London: Croom Helm Muncie, J and Wilson, D. (2004) Student Handbook of Criminal Justice. London: Cavendish Naughton, Michael.(July 28, 2002) The Scales of Injustice. The Observer Available at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/crimedebate/story/0,,764137,00.html Viewed May 7, 2007 Sanders, A. and Young, R. (2000) Criminal Justice. London: Butterworths The Morgan Report. (Safer Communities: the Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach" Home Office Standing Conference on Crime Prevention. (August 1991) The Home Office Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G. (1982) ‘Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety’, The Atlantic Monthly, March, 29-37 Read More