Policing and the Criminal Justice System: Public Confidence and Perceptions: Findings From the 2004/05 British Crime Survey

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Allen ◽  
Suzanne Edmonds ◽  
Alison Patterson ◽  
Dominic Smith
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
British Crime Survey

scholarly journals Investigating the Impact of Jury Sentencing Recommendations Using Procedural Justice Theory

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianni Ribeiro ◽  
Emma Antrobus
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Justice Theory ◽  
Perceptions Of Fairness ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
The Impact

Public confidence in the criminal justice system is critical for the system to function effectively. Two studies investigated the impact of jury sentencing recommendations on public confidence using procedural justice theory. The first study (N = 80) manipulated the presence of jury involvement in sentencing (voice present versus voice absent) and the punitiveness of the minimum non-parole period (more punitive versus less punitive) to examine whether giving juries a “voice”—a key element of procedural justice—would increase public confidence in the courts, as well as perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. Contrary to predictions, results revealed that a more punitive sentence led to increased perceptions of legitimacy, which was associated with higher confidence. The second study (N = 60) examined whether manipulating the Judge’s agreement with the jury’s recommendation—as well as the Judge’s reason for disagreement—would elicit the “frustration effect,” leading to a decrease in confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. There was no evidence to suggest that the frustration effect was present. Results of both studies could suggest that jury sentencing recommendations may not effectively increase public confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in the courts, however alternate explanations are discussed.

3. Evidence obtained by illegal or unfair means

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter discusses the circumstances in which relevant evidence can be excluded, as a matter of law or discretion, on the grounds that it was obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly. The principles for exclusion of evidence are considered, and exclusion in both civil and criminal cases discussed. In respect of civil cases, discretionary exclusion under the civil procedure rules is discussed. In respect of criminal cases, discretionary exclusion at common law and under statute is discussed. The chapter also considers the circumstances in which criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the court’s process, where a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute.

In this text, the criminal justice system will be examined in two sections. First, the law relating to important pre-trial matters, up to and including the admissibility of confession evidence in court, will be examined and, second, the institutional and procedural aspects of prosecution and matters relating to bail, classification of offences, trials, plea bargaining and the jury will be dealt with. In examining these topics, it is important to keep in mind the various aims of the criminal justice system and the extent to which the existing law serves these aims. Amongst the aims to be borne in mind are the following: (a) to detect crime and convict those who have committed it; (b) to have rules relating to arrest, search, questioning, interrogation and admissibility of evidence which do (d) to have rules as above which do not unnecessarily impede the proper to ensure that innocent persons are not convicted; to maintain public order; (g) to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system; and (h) properly to balance considerations of justice and fair procedure with those of efficiency and funding. In the following article, Frances Gibb, legal editor of examines

2012 ◽  
pp. 355-357
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Fair Procedure ◽  
The Law ◽  
Confession Evidence

scholarly journals Investigating the impact of jury sentencing recommendations using procedural justice theory

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianni Ribeiro ◽  
Emma Antrobus
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Justice Theory ◽  
Perceptions Of Fairness ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
The Impact

Public confidence in the criminal justice system is critical for the system to function effectively. Two studies investigated the impact of jury sentencing recommendations on public confidence using procedural justice theory. The first study (N = 80) manipulated the presence of jury involvement in sentencing (voice present versus voice absent) and the punitiveness of the minimum nonparole period (more punitive versus less punitive) to examine whether giving juries a "voice" - a key element of procedural justice - would increase public confidence in the courts, as well as perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. Contrary to predictions, results revealed that a more punitive sentence led to increased perceptions of legitimacy, which was associated with higher confidence. The second study (N = 60) examined whether manipulating the Judge's agreement with the jury's recommendation - as well as the Judge's reason for disagreement - would elicit the "frustration effect," leading to a decrease in confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. There was no evidence to suggest that the frustration effect was present. Results of both studies could suggest that jury sentencing recommendations may not effectively increase public confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in the courts, however alternate explanations are discussed.

scholarly journals NPA IN THE DOCK: Thumbs up for the prosecution service

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Schönteich
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
General Public ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Positive Opinion ◽  
Public Confidence

General public confidence in the criminal justice system and the government’s handling of crime is low, according to an Institute for Security Studies survey. Yet, most people trust the police and would willingly give evidence in court. People who have been to court as state witnesses are more positive about the work of the prosecution service compared to those who have not. Indeed, most court users have a positive opinion of prosecutors and the work they do. Dissatisfaction is primarily a result of lengthy delays in trials, and unhelpful and unprofessional prosecutors.

11. Evidence obtained by illegal or unfair means

2020 ◽  
pp. 320-348
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter discusses the circumstances in which relevant evidence can be excluded, as a matter of law or discretion, on the grounds that it was obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly. The principles for exclusion of evidence are considered, and exclusion in both civil and criminal cases discussed. In respect of civil cases, discretionary exclusion under the civil procedure rules is discussed. In respect of criminal cases, discretionary exclusion at common law and under statute is discussed. The chapter also considers the circumstances in which criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the court’s process, where a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document