What exactly is IRS Innocent Spouse Relief? It is a measure of relief built into the tax code that allows a person, if eligible, to avoid paying his or her spouse's tax if it was reported incorrectly. The innocent spouse relief applies to a spouse that can prove that he or she did not incur the tax bill and did not somehow benefit from the failure to pay. Ultimately, this rule is designed to protect people from liability for taxes incurred as a result of evasive or dishonest financial behavior by their spouses, or from divorces where one person fails to pay tax on the income he or she earned and intends to leave the other spouse with the bill.
Abstract The purpose of this research paper is to choose which of these models of justice: retributive, utilitarian, restorative or parallel, is appropriate for the Jonathan Nathaniel Ramsey case. We need justice to be delivered efficiently, effectively in order to make sure the offenders are held accountable and the victims receive assistance. Each crime that is committed needs to be addressed properly. When the crimes are not then that leads to the unrest in the community and to the victims.
The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining Disclaimer By: LawInfo When faced with criminal charges, a defendant often has one simple goal. That is, to minimize the potential penalty. Of course, being found innocent at trial, and being aquitted, is the best way to avoid jail time and other penalties.
Restorative justice is a very selective process, and can only truly work if both the victim and the offender agree to the terms of the conversation. In other words, strict vetting must be done on both the victim and the offender in order for restorative justice to occur. For this type of justice to actually be able to really work and bring about rehabilitation participation must be 100% voluntary otherwise it will fail. This among other things can be listed as a limitation of restorative justice. Another disadvantage is, that restorative justice cannot be implemented in all categories of crimes.
In his quote, Raymond Sugarman argues that tort law allows individuals to be compensated after injury, guarantees effective deterrence, and that it operates at low cost. Tort law provides individuals with the means necessary to receive compensation when injured, however, this does not always like Sugarman states “make the injured whole”. When considering the injured party it is important to note that there are other factors besides the monetary compensation that cannot be fixed by tort law. Tort law also does not serve as a bulletproof strategy for deterrence. In many cases deterrence through tort law is not visible or at best minimal but defiantly not “guaranteed”.
Our arguments against plea bargaining were based on the fact that it removes a fundamental Constitutional right from defendants, the right to a fair trial. There are many different reasons to be against plea bargains, and they all stem from this singular idea of denial of fundamental rights. It is clear that “…plea bargaining has undercut the goals of legal doctrines as diverse as the fourth amendment exclusionary rule, the insanity defense, the right of confrontation, the defendant’s right to attend criminal proceedings, and the recently announced right of the press and the public to observe the administration of criminal justice,” (Alschuler, 1983). The process of plea bargaining strips defendants of these rights and defenses and opens the
There are many differences between retributive and restorative justice. Their view on crime, how to control criminality, and response to crime differ. Retributive justice considers the offender taking accountability when they have been punished, while restorative justice focuses on the offender taking responsibility for their actions and attempting to repair the harm that their crime caused. Crime control is a role of the community in restorative justice, as opposed to the criminal justice system in retributive justice. Victims and the community play greater roles in the restorative justice model.
As humans, we like to that we are informed. Statistics show that, unfortunately, this isn 't the case when it comes to voting. For example, forty one percent of Americans think that foreign aid is one of the top two components of our federal budget. When, it really only takes up less than one percent. Where do we get this number that 's astronomically off?
Lastly, courts lack the resource to implement policies in line with their decisions. Thus, even when cases are won, “court decisions are often rendered useless” as litigants are left to the task of implementation (Rosenburg 21). Despite the Constrained Courts view that courts are insufficient in producing social change, “it does not deny the possibility” (Rosenburg 21). When the right factors are in place and certain conditions in favor of the case’s outcome, courts can be a powerful institution in promoting justice (Hall 2).
This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration. First, during lecture three, we talked about the notion of just deserts.
4 Criticism and Challenges The first point of criticism against victim participation in restorative justice processes arises from scepticism about an apology to the victim as a way of dealing with criminal matters. The perception sometimes exists as to it simply being a way to get away with the crime.106 Members of the public should thus be educated to understand that restorative justice is more than a mere saying sorry, but in the context of victim offender mediation or family group conferences it rather affords the victim the opportunity to confront the child offender with the real and human cost of his or her criminal actions. Another concern deals with the possible secondary victimisation of the victim in the case where the offender pretends
The victim deserves similar level of protection and attention from the court like that of an accused i.e. a victim 's interests need to be balanced vis-à-vis that of accused. Victims of crime go through mental and physical trauma and suffer throughout their lives , as there place in the society changes. A victim is certainly entitled to reparation, restitution and safeguards of his rights and criminal justice would look hollow if justice is not done to the victim of the crime. In recent years, the Legislature and the judiciary have taken gradual steps to develop the necessary principles by which appropriate compensation could be paid to the victims of crimes. The gradual shift in the approach of the Supreme Court is a positive sign but other organs i.e. the government and the legislature have to make conscious efforts to consider the rights of the victims.
It was revealed by a survey carried out by National Consumer Council how unhappy and unsatisfactory people were with the Civil Justice System. The main weaknesses identified were that the system being too slow, too complicated for ordinary people to understand and too outdated and costly. In the continued criticism of the system Lord Woolf was appointed by the government who came up with suggestions and solutions to overcome these problems. As a result Civil Procedure Rules came into force on 26th April 1999 introducing different reforms to the system. The rationale of the reforms was to avoid litigation and promote settlement between the parties at dispute.
Batley (2005) stated that restorative justice is about restoring, healing and re- integrating victims, offenders, as well as the society and also preventing further harm. In this assignment, I will be discussing approaches to restorative justice and illustrating their advantages and disadvantages to offending. I will also provide the applications of these five approaches of restorative justice which are retributive approach, utilitarian deterrence approach, rehabilitation approach, restitution approach and restorative approach in the given case study. I will then explain my preferred approach to justice through identifying a personal belief or value that underpins my choice.
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
