Criminal Justice Issues - Case Study Example

The extent to which criminal justice issues revolve around whether one prioritises offender rights or victim rights. Criminal justice system refers to the system employed by the state to maintain law and order, social control, administering justice and enforcing laws. Courts, law enforcement agencies are some of the institutions which carry out these responsibilities. The main aim of criminal justice system is the conviction and the appropriate punishment to the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent. It also wants to ensure that very little pain is caused to everyone in the process. In United Kingdom, crime has increased to thirty fold in the last century but the criminal justice system has not adapted to it. Now there is a controversy in UK related to rights of the offender and the victim. In order to examine whether UK criminal justice system has given priority to offenders’ right or not; one must understand how the system functions. Criminal justice system In United Kingdom, the “purpose of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent. It is responsible for detecting crime and bringing it to justice; and carrying out the orders of court, such as collecting fines, and supervising community and custodial punishment.” (Aims and Objectives). Other important goals of the criminal justice system are to bring down crime by booking more offences, to increase people’s belief that justice system is fair and will serve the needs of the law abiding citizen. A large number of agencies work together for the successful functioning of criminal justice process. These include “the police, the courts, the prison service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Probation Service.” (How It Works?). The work of the above mentioned agencies supervised by three government departments i.e. the home office, the department for constitutional affairs and the attorney general’s office. Once a crime is committed, crown prosecutors will decide whether to charge a person with criminal offence or not and the police will investigate the offence. “Although the police and the CPS work closely together, both organisations are completely independent of each other, and the final responsibility for the decision as to whether or not to proceed with an offence that has been charged rests with the CPS. (Preparing the Case). In UK, there are mainly two types of court i.e. Magistrates’ courts and Crown courts. “The less serious offences are handled entirely in the magistrates’ court. Over 95% of all cases are dealt with in this way. The more serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, to be dealt with by a judge and jury.” ( Magistrates’ Courts). Very serious offences are tried in Crown Court. The Crown Court basically deals with “indictable-only offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery; Either-way offences transferred from the Magistrates’ Court; Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court; Sentencing decisions transferred from the Magistrates’ Court.” (Crown Court). An offender is someone who has been convicted for a certain crime. For serious crimes, a judge may impose a custodial sentence or a prison. The following reasons account for a custodial sentence. “1. the offence is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence; or the offender refuses to comply with the requirements of a community order; or the offender is convicted of a specified sexual or violent offence (see Dangerous Offender provisions under Criminal Justice Act 2003) and the court finds that the offender poses a risk of harm to the public.” (Prison). An offender in UK criminal justice has several rights. He/she can appeal against their conviction or sentence or both. If you appeal against your conviction, it will be heard in the crown court before two magistrates and a Judge. If only sentence is disputed; a crown judge will hear your appeal. An offender can appeal to a high court, if the solicitor of the offender believes that Magistrates made the wrong decision due to misinterpretation of the law. “High Court which will decide whether the magistrates were right or not. If the High Court decides they were wrong it can order the magistrates to change their verdict. This does not involve a re-trial” (Parole). Incase an offender’s appeal fail, he can make an application to the criminal cases review commission which has the authority to refer the case back to Court of Appeal. Incase crown court convicts you, you can appeal by submitting form NG (Notice and Grounds). An offender is eligible for parole which means that he can be released before they complete their sentence. “For prisoners serving sentences for offences committed before 4th April 2005, parole is applicable if the sentence is four years or longer.  For prisoners serving sentences for offences committed on or after 4th April, parole is only applicable if the prisoner is serving a public protection sentence or a life sentence.” (Parole). Reports by probation and prison staff play a crucial role in allowing parole. Several other factors such as convict’s behaviour in prison, his home circumstances and nature of convict’s crime also will be taken into account while allowing parole. The rights of victims The victims of crime have several rights. Some of the rights include right to privacy, right to adequate support services, right to be treated with respect and dignity at all times, right to know about the progress of the case, right to compensation, right to know about sentencing and releasing convicts, and right to protection from offenders. Some other rights of victim include 1. “A national telephone helpline and court-based support services provided through Victim Support 2. For many criminal offences, the opportunity to provide a victim personal statement to the court6 3. For serious sexual or violent crimes for which the offender is serving at least 12 months’ imprisonment, the right to be consulted and notified about the release of the offender 4. Special measures for vulnerable witnesses (including victims) when giving evidence in court – such as facilities to give evidence by video link7 5. A Victims’ Charter, which gives guidance on the way in which victims of crime can expect to be treated by the criminal justice system 6. In some cases, the opportunity of making a claim for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority 7. A possibility (not a right) to press for a compensation order against the offender, as part of the court’s sentence (the court is obliged to consider whether or not to make a compensation order at the sentencing stage of every case). 8. The right to apply to the High Court for judicial review to challenge a decision of the prosecution not to pursue a case 9. The residual – and little used – option of pursuing a private prosecution, in the event that a prosecution by the state does not proceed.” (Victims’ and Defendants’ Rights: Can Be They Reconciled). UK has a criminal justice system which was developed in the Victorian time which unduly emphasises the rights of the accused with hardly any concern for the victim. Justice is the foundation of a free, democratic and civilized society and it becomes very powerful where people have the confidences in it. Without public faith, the effectiveness and legitimacy of the criminal justice system is compromised. Rapid social changes, mass migration, increasing global insecurity and potential terrorist threats create new challenges for British criminal justice system. Moreover, there is strong public opinion that it gives more right to offender than the victim. The criminal justice system of the United Kingdom is a product of history and has been developed in an uneven way. Its savagery and injustice in Victorian times led to importance being given to the extra safe guard for the accused. It is very true that these rights are necessary but at times these rights of the accused seem to eclipse the rights of the victim. Majority of the people in UK believe that the criminal justice system treats those offenders fairly. In a survey “while 78 per cent of people were very or fairly confident that the CJS respects the rights of those accused of a crime, 43 per cent were confident that the CJS was effective in bringing those who have committed a crime to justice, and 34 per cent were confident that the CJS meets the needs of victims. (Alen, Jonathan., Edmonds, Suzanne., Patterson, Alson., & Smith, Dominic). There are rules and regulations which come in the way of justice. For example, in some cases the accused are released due to technicalities. In some other cases, the culprits are given significant time off their punishment just pleading guilty. The European convention on Human rights and The Human Rights Acts have been misquoted and misunderstood, resulting prevention of proper protection of the public. The UK system of sentencing is still difficult to understand and complicated which result a public observation that sentencing is soft and getting softer. Public confidence damages when lenient punishment is given in high profile cases. It is also alleged of the British criminal justice system that people from definite ethnic groups are more disproportionately to be arrested or to be convicted of serious crime. There is a need for rebalancing the system so that the law abiding citizen could live in peacefully. UK criminal justice system gives a shorter sentence if the accused plead guilty at the earliest possible point even if the offender caught red banded. The ideal situation would be that judges should have more discretionary powers so that they don’t have to reduce it by one third and judges should be able to remove the discount altogether if the proof against the accused overwhelming. Another example for giving importance to the accused is when Attorney General refers a case to court of appeal. Now –a-days, court of appeal gives a discounts to the accused as they have to go through a sentencing hearing a second time .According to UK criminal justice system, when judges, at present, punish an accused for unlimited sentence, they mention the minimum term which the convict must serve .In order to calculate this, they make a tariff for this purpose and decide the first possible release date which often at the half way point of tariff. But actually very few convicts are set free at the half way point. But the public perception is that very dangerous prisoners might be released after serving a few years in prison. This reduction of sentence for dangerous prisoners should be abolished and court should be given the power to make these types of offenders serve longer time in jail. According to criminal justice act 2004, offenders given time limited sentences for less serious offences. They spent half of their sentence in prison and other half in community. There is a possibility that a few of them, at least, pose a threat to society. So it won’t be a bad idea giving some discretionary powers to judges to keep some of them in jail till the completion of their sentence. Moreover, often the accused do not turn up at the court which creates lot of inconveniences and frustrations to victims. In 2006, over 160000 warrants issued for accused failing to attend. There are many who fail to turn up and it is really a cumbersome process to catch and deal with them. Recently a judge ruled that ₤2400 should be given to Robert Napier, a prisoner at Barlinnie jail, for emptying chemical toilets every morning. Those who believe that in UK offenders’ rights have given priority over victims’ are angered by this. They ask why courts are giving compensation for violating human rights of a person who didn’t give any scant respect for the rights of victim. It is true that within the criminal justice system, the rights of victims’ and that of offenders’ are naturally irreconcilable. At present, all the needs of victims are not being met. They should be treated with more respect and dignity. They will benefit greatly, if they have legal right to better protection from publicity and better information about their cases. There have been some changes in the rights of the offenders’ in UK. The changes such as allowing previous misconduct have not improved victims rights. Changes have been made to the ‘hearsay’ and ‘double jeopardy.’ This is a part of government efforts to balance the system by reducing the rights offenders’. According to the government, the aim is to reduce crime and to dispense justice fairly by increasing confidence of the public in the rule of law. As the criminal justice system, at present, unfairly weighted towards offenders, the government is intended to strike a balance between offenders’ and victims’ rights. The question arises why a person who has accused of a serious crime need rights. Conviction of an accused results loss of liberty. Since conviction carry such important consequences, it is very important to avoid wrongful conviction of innocents. In a sense, it is more important to avoid wrongful conviction of innocent than wrongful acquittal of culprit. It will not serve the interests of victim as well as the community because the real culprit will remain undetected and there is possibility that he might indulge in crime again. Could victims be given additional rights? There is a general perception that victims’ needs are not being met. Actually, victims hardly gain any advantage from recent curtailment of offenders’ rights. On the other hand, there could be a number of options for improving victims experience with criminal justice system. They need to be treated with respect, dignity and understanding at all stages of their case. They should have enforceable legal right to be informed by crown prosecution service about the progress of their case. It should be explored that whether victim could participate in the trial process or not. Conclusion The interests of victims will not be served by curtailing the rights of the accused as it might lead to the conviction of innocents and the real culprits remain unbooked and he might start committing crimes again. Maintaining a high standards justice should be a part of wider public good. Putting the rights of the victims’ against those of offenders’ will lead to undermining of above mentioned ideal. So for everyone’s interest, the ways to reconcile apparently competing rights should be thought about. Works Cited How It Works? Working Together for Justice. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/how_it_works/index.html Aims and Objectives. Working Together for Justice. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/aims_and_objectives/index.html Preparing the Case. Working Together for Justice. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/how_it_works/prepare_case/index.html Magistrates’ Courts. Working Together for Justice. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/how_it_works/magistrates_court/index.html Crown Court. Working Together for Justice. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/how_it_works/crown_court/index.html Prison. Understanding Your Sentence. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/offender/prison/index.html Parole. Understanding Your Sentence. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/offender/your_rights/parole/index.html Victims’ and Defendants’ Rights: Can Be They Reconciled? Rethinking Crime & Punishment. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.rethinking.org.uk/informed/lagbriefing.pdf Alen, Jonathan., Edmonds, Suzanne., Patterson, Alson., & Smith, Dominic. Policing and Criminal Justice System. Public Confidence and Perceptions: finding from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey. Home Office Online Report. Retrieved April 7, 2007, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/rdsolr0706.pdf Read More