A New System Takes Shape

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Guiney
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Parole System

The chapter examines the legislative planning process that gradually refined the early release framework eventually given legal effect by Part Two of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The chapter begins with a review of the post-election planning process that gathered pace following the 1987 General Election. It examines the Home Office strategic awayday held at Leeds Castle in September 1987 and goes on to consider the Green Paper, Punishment, Custody and the Community and an unprecedented conference at Ditchley Park which brought together senior decision-makers from across the criminal justice system. The chapter then examines the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill 1990/91 and reflects upon the dramatic backlash against the new parole system in the mid-1990s. The chapter concludes with a critical appraisal of the underlying tensions that defined the development of criminal justice during this transitional period.

Truth in Sentencing

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Guiney
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Criminal Justice Policy ◽  
Initial Reaction ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty ◽  
Parole System

The chapter explores the evolution of early release policy and practice between 1987 and 1992—a transitional period sometimes described as an ‘Indian Summer’ for liberal criminal justice policy. It begins with a brief overview of the challenges facing the criminal justice system on the eve of the 1987 General Election. It goes on to consider the piecemeal modification of remission arrangements in July 1987, a measure to relieve pressure on the prison system that ultimately came at a high cost for the Home Office. It provides a detailed overview of the proceedings of the Carlisle Committee and the compromises that laid the ground for their final report ‘The Parole System in England and Wales’. The chapter concludes by reflecting upon the initial reaction to the Carlisle Report and the considerable uncertainty within the Home Office about how best to respond to these challenging proposals.

After the Crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-396
Author(s):  
Paul H. Robinson ◽  
Muhammad Sarahne
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Access To Education ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
Collateral Consequences ◽  
Probation And Parole ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Although an offender’s conduct before and during the crime is the traditional focus of criminal law and sentencing rules, an examination of post-offense conduct can also be important in promoting criminal justice goals. After the crime, different offenders make different choices and have different experiences, and those differences can suggest appropriately different treatment by judges, correctional officials, probation and parole supervisors, and other decision makers in the criminal justice system. Positive post-offense conduct ought to be acknowledged and rewarded, not only to encourage it but also as a matter of fair and just treatment. This essay describes four kinds of positive post-offense conduct that merit special recognition and preferential treatment: the responsible offender, who avoids further deceit and damage to others during the process leading to conviction; the debt-paid offender, who suffers the full punishment deserved (according to true principles of justice rather than the sentence actually imposed); the reformed offender, who takes affirmative steps to leave criminality behind; and the redeemed offender, who out of genuine remorse tries to atone for the offense. The essay considers how one might operationalize a system for giving special accommodation to such offenders. Positive post-offense conduct might be rewarded, for example, through the selection and shaping of sanctioning methods, through giving preference in access to education, training, treatment, and other programs, and through elimination or restriction of collateral consequences of conviction that continue after the sentence is completed.

24. Criminal justice institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 719-741
Author(s):  
Steve Case ◽  
Phil Johnson ◽  
David Manlow ◽  
Roger Smith ◽  
Kate Williams
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Considerable Influence ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Governmental Agency ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Government

This chapter explores the criminal justice institutions. In practice, the criminal justice system contains five distinct institutions that are responsible for delivering justice: the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (known as the CPS), the courts, probation providers, and prisons. Although they are all part of one overall system, each has different aims, roles, and challenges. Theoretically, the fact that these bodies are all accountable to the separation of powers concept should bring some unity in that it gives Parliament, the independent judiciary, and central government opportunities to shape the system to align with their version of justice. The government can exert considerable influence through the work of the Ministry of Justice or MoJ. The MoJ is currently the most important governmental agency in the criminal justice system, but the larger and more powerful Home Office is also involved to an extent, mainly with the police.

The importance of external stakeholders for police body-worn camera diffusion

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Todak ◽  
Janne E. Gaub ◽  
Michael D. White
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Diffusion Of Innovations ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Short Circuit ◽  
Police Department ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Daily Work ◽  
External Stakeholders

Purpose The diffusion of innovations paradigm suggests that stakeholders’ acceptance of a police innovation shapes how it spreads and impacts the larger criminal justice system. A lack of support by external stakeholders for police body-worn cameras (BWCs) can short-circuit their intended benefits. The purpose of this paper is to examine the perceptions of BWCs among non-police stakeholders who are impacted by the technology as well as how BWCs influence their daily work processes. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted interviews and focus groups (n=41) in two US cities where the police department implemented BWCs. The interviewees range from courtroom actors (e.g. judges, prosecutors) to those who work with police in the field (e.g. fire and mental health), city leaders, civilian oversight members, and victim advocates. Findings External stakeholders are highly supportive of the new technology. Within the diffusion of innovations framework, this support suggests that the adoption of BWCs will continue. However, the authors also found the decision to implement BWCs carries unique consequences for external stakeholders, implying that a comprehensive planning process that takes into account the views of all stakeholders is critical. Originality/value Despite the recent diffusion of BWCs in policing, this is the first study to examine the perceptions of external stakeholders. More broadly, few criminologists have applied the diffusion of innovations framework to understand how technologies and other changes emerge and take hold in the criminal justice system. This study sheds light on the spread of BWCs within this framework and offers insights on their continued impact and consequences.

A “think piece” on intelligence, investigation and prosecution

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fitzpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Current System ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Government

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to expose the failure of the criminal justice system of England and Wales to provide an effective response to widespread fraud and to point to sources from which a new doctrine may be created. The author’s approach draws on public sources, in particular, recent Home Office publications, the work of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee and studies undertaken by the Mayor of London’s offices in 2014/2015. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a critical assessment of the criminal justice system based on the author’s own experience as a fraud prosecutor. Findings Among the findings is that, while the failings of the current system have been apparent for some years, the extent and depth of the same failings have not been publicly realised, nor sufficiently acknowledged by the authorities. It has become obvious that the traditional response of the criminal justice system, when employed against fraud, will fail for want of anything corresponding to the resources required. A new doctrine will emerge as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is revised and more flexibly employed. The Criminal Finances Bill also holds much promise, in particular, with its new offences akin to money laundering and the provision of powers of investigation at a significantly lower level of command among investigators. However, there remains an apparent reluctance in law enforcement to explain its methodology or to support reform, which would allow a fuller sharing of intelligence and appreciations of threats posed by fraud derived from intelligence with the financial services sector and the victim public. Originality/value The value of the paper is derived from the author’s long experience as a fraud prosecutor and as an adviser to the government, on fraud and organised crime, in a closely related jurisdiction with similar problems, but where greater success has been achieved, namely, Hong Kong.

scholarly journals Fragile Algorithms and Fallible Decision-Makers: Lessons from the Justice System

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 71-96
Author(s):  
Jens Ludwig ◽  
Sendhil Mullainathan
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Impact

Algorithms (in some form) are already widely used in the criminal justice system. We draw lessons from this experience for what is to come for the rest of society as machine learning diffuses. We find economists and other social scientists have a key role to play in shaping the impact of algorithms, in part through improving the tools used to build them.

The Ohio Data Story in Three Part

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 237-239
Author(s):  
Sara Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The People ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Data Platform

The complex, intricate process of felony sentencing in Ohio makes ensuring clear, comprehendible sentences of the utmost import for the administration of justice and promoting confidence in the system. As such, for more than a year, the Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission worked with justice system partners to develop a package of uniform felony sentencing documents that prescribe the most clear and concise, minimum language required to comply with Criminal Rule 32 and existing case law and establishes standardized, common data essential for identifying relationships and trends common to all felony courts. The adoption of the package of felony sentencing documents is the first step to begin standardized, aggregate felony sentencing data collection in Ohio—the Ohio Sentencing Data Platform. Sentencing data provide opportunities for robust research, including the ability to parse comparative data between counties, recognizing that community standards can drive law enforcement, prosecution, and sentencing decision-making. The Ohio Sentencing Data Platform will improve information about the people we are trying to help in the criminal justice system and has been met with enthusiastic interest and support from judges and courts throughout the state. Our modest, incremental path will ultimately yield high dividends in building public trust in criminal justice processes and outcomes. At the same time, without fiscal or administrative burden, it will help give judges and decision- makers access to the best information available to perform their public service duty in the most impactful way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document