Passing the Sentence on Jake - Essay Example

?PROBLEM QUESTION of Question One According to section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) court of law must consider five rationales of passing a verdict which include: the chastisement of lawbreakers, the diminution of offense (inclusive of by preclusion), the restructuring and psychoanalysis of lawbreakers, the safety of the community and the creation of compensation by lawbreakers to individuals affected by their crimes (W100 Team, 2012; p. 55). In Jake’s case however, CJA 2003 does not give clarity over which of the five rationales are more vital than the other. Thus, it is up to the jurisdiction of the jury of judges or a bench magistrate or to use them effectively. However, Jake must be treated as a first offender and the circumstances that led to his decision to commit a crime must be revisited carefully. According to section 143 (1) CJA 2003 openly stipulates that the graveness of a certain offense must be established by revisiting two main elements; the guilt of the criminal and the damage that resulted from the crime or potentially being rooted by the crime (W100 team, 2012; p. 55). From Jake’s solicitor point of view, he must be tried as a first offender considering the graveness of the offense. From the information provided in the case Jake has got no previous criminal records or convictions. Hence the reason for the magistrate to pass an appropriate sentence that will not harm him more. Revisiting factor number one concerning guilt or culpability of the lawbreaker, it is partitioned into four main parts according to degree of seriousness. The offender may have had the objective to commit to cause damage or injury to the victims. He/she may have been careless in causing injury to the point that he/she knows harm will be caused but he/she still goes forward to commit the crime. Besides, the offender could have had facts about the impending risks of causing harm but he/she did not have the intention to cause injury. Lastly, the criminal could be totally negligent of the risks and the likely harm. Basing on the facts given Jake falls in the least seriousness to an extent that he was totally negligent of the risks involved. Jake committed the crime on impulse without putting in mind the impending risks. He had the assumption the owner had already left in hurry and that the said owner irritated him in addition to his friends’ irritation and ridicule of his entire situation. Therefore Jake must be charged under the least seriousness or culpability. Secondly, the harm caused during the criminal act counts a lot for magistrates’ evaluation. Though the state of harm is hard to classify, section 143 (1) CJA 2003 makes an effort to group harm in three wide headlines that may be used during the court proceedings or trials of the offender (W100 team, 2012; p. 55). Injury to persons or victims could be rape, psychological harm or loss of finances; destruction to the society which could encompass destruction of public health facilities hurt to the national safety and lastly harm to the animals. Though from the facts given, the four year child got scared to a point of not being left all alone for more than 3 months, Jake was not aware that his actions could come in the line of the a child. Besides, the mother being stressed to an extent of attending counseling for six sessions, Jake had no intentions to scare anyone. If by any point she got scared, then it is clear that her actions with those of the child scared her off. Jake was hoping for a peaceful job; where he expected no one to spot him. From the series of events in the information provided it is apparent that as much as the bench of magistrates can entirely blame Jake for the offences given, at the same time one must note that Jake acted on impulse and not on intent. The solicitor must also use other factors such as mitigating and aggravating factors in defending Jake. These factors are vital in ruling judgment upon the accused or offender. This implies that Jake must be charged under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 where offenders are treated as first offenders without any history of crimes (W100 team, 2012; p. 55). Jake did not plan to commit the crime, but rather the crime committed came as a result of a mitigating factor which is provocation. Jake was highly provoked into committing the crime. The crime committed emanated from a series of events in his life. First, he lost his job as an electrician in the last 12 month and he has not secured another job since then. Second, he is mocked by his friends because of being broke to hang out with them. Third, when he leaves his friends to head home, he is nearly knocked off by a careless driver who speeds away without checking on his safeness. He notices an open door where the careless driver emerged from and decides to enter inside the house. Jake sees money abandoned on the table and decides to take it plus other valuables present. On his exit, he is spotted by a four year kid who screams and attracts the attention of the mother who raises alarm. Before Jake could reach his home, he is arrested basing on the witness’ descriptions. The police charge him on burglary. From the series of occurrences above, the magistrate has an obligation to evaluate the circumstances behind the crime before passing out a ruling. What’s more, Jake must be given credit for pleading guilty. From the facts, it is noted that Jake pleaded guilty on interrogation concerning the crime. He accepted his mistake and he wanted to take responsibility for his own actions. Therefore this is another reason as to why the magistrate must pass a ruling that is favorable and not too harsh to the first offender. Furthermore, it has not been told as to whether crimes in the area have been on the increase as to subject Jake to a harsh sentence. Passing the Sentence on Jake Jake’s case falls under domestic burglary where he unlawfully entered a residential home and did actually commit the crime. Domestic burglaries have a sentence of not more than 14 years imprisonment. This is outlined in Section 9(1) (a) of TA 1968 (W100 team, 2012; p. 55). Jake is only 21 and his offense must be seen as a departure from desperation. He entered the house on believing that the owners were absent. While in the house he took the least time possible picking items he sighted such as jewellery and money abandoned on the table. Jake had no intention to cause harm to any soul within the house because he was sure the careless driver lived alone in the house and that he had forgotten to lock the door. Upon his capture he fully cooperated with the police and all the items he had stolen were all with him. Jake has bitter regrets for getting involved in the crime hence, the reason of his full cooperation. According to the guideline case R v Brewster, six Appellants who were charged on domestic burglary and sentenced to different number of years in prison had their appeals dismissed by the judge based on the aggravating factors and mitigating factors. From the case of the appellants it can be summarized that the crime were committed repeatedly and during the wee hours of the day. That is the crimes were committed at night and that the offenders caused great harm to the victims. Moreover, in (2002) ‘R v William Patrick James McInerney’, Lawtell the offenders were sentenced due recommendations given by; “the Sentencing Advisory Panel (‘the panel’)” that occurred on 9 April 2002. In the two cases the least sentence passed was less than two years. Therefore, Jake’s sentence must be reduced to a lighter sentence of not more than one year or sentenced to serve the community. Question Two According to section 17(1) of the 1989 Act concerning children it is the responsibility and duty of the local authority to provide assurance children welfare within the confines a specific location or area (W100 Team, 2012; p. 22). The children must be in need and family upbringing of such children must be promoted. When protecting children, as in the elements of duty to children and families, an obligation in law that social workers and local authorities vested with professional accountability to for children and youth will absorb this common responsibility via willing agreement with the parents and the children. James’ mother who has since separated from her husband is in custody of James. Upon the x-ray there are injuries that are found of which his mother is not sure of how they came about. James can only recount of the incident where his mother hurt him while at the shops. The other injury is not known how it was sustained. The social worker must consider the concept of “significant harm” before obtaining an order to safeguard the child from harms. In acquiring an order to protect the young people in a situation of emergency or obtaining an application for care or order of supervision in regard to a child there restrains by the legislature to situation where child is probable to suffer harm or is suffering injury. There certain provisions outlined by section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989 in the definition of the term “harm” (W100 team, 2012; p. 21). The definitions are that harm is a form of malice treatment, mutilation of health or destruction of growth of a child. The harm must be “considerable”. In connection to the issues of mutilation of health or mutilation of growth the extent of harm will take effect on association of the health of the child or his/her growth with a benchmark of health or growth that could be considerably anticipated of the same child. In the entire scenarios, the damage or probability of harm must be as a result of ‘concern’ essentially provided (or probably to be provided) to the young person, or to the child being outside the control of the parent. Care or concern is not described in the Act but direction by the state makes suggestions of a broader view. This can be giving the child good health and complete growth which might be mental, physical, behavioral, social and emotional and not merely having an observable charge of the child. The crown court will then make a comparison of the care being provided to the child with the intended considerable care a parent is meant to offer under the support or expectations from the society to give the child, provided the required needs. Factors to Consider When Issuing Supervision Orders and Care Orders These are two chief orders under the public law. The first location a child can be put into care is the local authority where the child will be kept under the keen eye of the supervision or probation officer. The supervision and care orders can specifically be granted on a formal application of an authentic person or local authority agent. This is only if it can be proven that the child’s health is in great danger of harm. Before making the application the social worker or authorized person must make consultation with the local authority for the place where the young person normally lives, if it is considerably empirical to act in that manner under section 31 (6) the Children Act of 1989 (W100 team, 2012; p. 21). The provisions under this section of the Act are supervision or care order can only be declared if the child is in a state of suffering or probable to suffer a considerable harm and that the harm or injury is as a result of; the care that is being provided to the child or probable to be provided not being what it is expected of the care provider or the parent of the child and the child must be past the control of the parent. In this scenario, once it has been proven that James mother is not providing the care that is expected of her to guarantee safety of James, then supervision or care order can be applied and issued to an authorized person. Bibliography W100 team (2012), Rules, Rights and Justice: An Introduction to Law, Block 5 Sanctions, The Open University, Brunel Road, Totton, Hampshire, United Kingdom Read More