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.
Article Presentation Kathleen Harris and Alison Crawford (2015) wrote article in relation to, Robin Camp, a federal Canadian court judge, who was adjudicating a sexual assault case involving a 19-year-old women in Calgary, AB in 2014. During the victim’s testimony, Judge Camp asked the 19-year-old women “why she could not just keep her knees together” and “why didn’t you just sink your bottom down into the basin so he couldn’t penetrate you” (Crawford & Harris, 2015). These statements spark issues with the public and our judicial system. Due to this statement, Judge Camp has received many complaints, as well as, under review for his behaviour from the council.
A judge should be the only one able to decide a person’s fate because they use fact over feelings. For
When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.
The Constitution was originally divided into seven articles. The first article in the Constitution grants the Legislative Branch its powers along with its limitations. It states that the Legislative Branch- also known as Congress- is divided into two houses: the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Congress has the authority to manage money by taxing, borrowing money, and regulating trade. Additionally, other important powers Congress incorporates is the authority to raise armies and preserving the navy.
To understand, what is "discretionary decision making" within the Criminal Courts, let me explain what is discretion. According to the textbook America 's Courts and The Criminal Justice System discretion is the lawful ability of an agent of government to exercise choice in making a decision. Now, "discretionary decisions in the criminal court process are made on the basis of legal judgements" (Neubauer & Fradella, p132). The "three major subcomponents are legal judgements, policy priorities, and personal philosophies" (Cole, 1970; Smith)". An example would be a prosecutor who refuses to file a criminal charge because in her legal judgement, the evidence is not enough to prove all the elements of the offense" (Neubauer & Fradella).
A fair and unbiased court system is necessary for the legal system. The role of the court is to correct any injustice, not to compound it. When prejudice and corruption leak into the courts, what recourse do we have for eradicating them from society? Our judges must be stalwarts of integrity because the power to move our country forward or hold our country back often lies in their hands. Judge Persky had the power to bring justice to a victim, to help her and her family move forward.
There are three branches of government the Judicial branch, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch. The Judicial branch is the most important branch of government. The Judicial branch is important for many reasons, some things they do are they review the work of both the courts of appeals and the district courts, they decide cases under the nation's laws, and they have Judicial reviews. One reason why the Judicial branch is the most important branch of government is because they review the work of both the courts of appeals and the district courts. Without someone reviewing the work of courts people may feel that they can get away with things.
If they were to be executed based off a wrongful conviction, the justice system would never be able to reflect on their mistakes and learn from the verdict
Individuals who commit the same crime should receive the same sentences, if the this is the individuals first appearance. If one of the individuals has committed the crime before, and then committed it again, this individual needs to be punished more severely, then the one that committed it for the first time because the judicial system needs to show individuals that it is not going to allow an individual to commit the same crime over and over and just get a slap on the wrist for
The American criminal justice system tries to be truly just and has been before, but humans are not perfect and cannot always be truly just. One way the American criminal justice system is not just is when people are wrongly convicted of crimes. Although people in the system may not do this on purpose,
This type of sentencing is meant to provide a balance between punishment and
This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms. In considering the equity of the pros and cons it is my opinion that the existing system in place works best. Every system is flawed.
A person should be punished appropriately for the crime they committed but the punishment should not include putting strain or forcing them to severe their relationships with their
Even the innocent get sentenced major years for crimes that weren't even committed by them. Sentence reforming needs to take action.
