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.

scholarly journals Police Law Actions Based the Principle of Discretion against Suspects

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1984-1990
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Law

Among the law enforcement work in the criminal justice system, police are the most attractive, because in it there are many human involvement as decision makers. The police can in essence be seen as a living law, because it is in the hands of the police that the law is embodied, at least in the criminal law. If the law aims to create order in society, such as by fighting against evil, then in the end, it is the police who will determine what is concretely called ordering, who should be subdued, who should be protected and so on

Scaled Punishments

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Wansley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Confidence Level ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Collateral Consequences ◽  
Criminal Defendant

This article challenges the principle that punishment is only justified after a defendant has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It proposes instead a system of scaled punishments in which a defendant’s sentence would be proportioned to the jury’s reported confidence level in the defendant’s guilt. The criminal justice system already implements a series of implicit scaled punishments in the form of plea bargains. This article defends the counterintuitive conclusion that a system of explicit scaled punishments would better satisfy the aims of retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence that we take to legitimate punishment. A system of scaled punishments would smooth out the moral discontinuity that our binary verdict structure creates. It would more precisely align the collateral consequences of criminal adjudications with the risk each criminal defendant poses. It would better distribute the costs of legal error. Paradoxically, a system of scaled punishments would likely reduce net incarceration in the United States. Factual uncertainty is pervasive in criminal law, and a system of scaled punishments would respond to uncertainty more rationally.

A Truce in Criminal Law’s Distributive Principle Wars?

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-583
Author(s):  
Paul H. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
A Value ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Past Wrongs

Crime-control utilitarians and retributivist philosophers have long been at war over the appropriate distributive principle for criminal liability and punishment, with little apparent possibility of reconciliation between the two. In the utilitarians’ view, the imposition of punishment can be justified only by the practical benefit that it provides: avoiding future crime. In the retributivists’ view, doing justice for past wrongs is a value in itself that requires no further justification. The competing approaches simply use different currencies: fighting future crime versus doing justice for past wrongs. It is argued here that the two are in fact reconcilable, in a fashion. We cannot declare a winner in the distributive principle wars but something more like a truce. Specifically, good utilitarians ought to support a distributive principle based upon desert because the empirical evidence suggests that doing justice for past wrongdoing is likely the most effective and efficient means of controlling future crime. A criminal justice system perceived by the community as conflicting with its principles of justice provokes resistance and subversion, whereas a criminal justice system that earns a reputation for reliably doing justice is one whose moral credibility inspires deference, assistance, and acquiescence, and is more likely to have citizens internalize its norms of what is truly condemnable conduct. Retributivists ought to support empirical desert as a distributive principle because, while it is indeed distinct from deontological desert, there exists an enormous overlap between the two, and it seems likely that empirical desert may be the best practical approximation of deontological desert. Indeed, some philosophers would argue that the two are necessarily the same.

scholarly journals Wife Assault, The Justice System and Professional Responsibility

1995 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 908
Author(s):  
Diana Ginn
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Battered Women ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Professional Responsibility ◽  
Wife Assault ◽  
The Past ◽  
Key Players ◽  
The Way

The author reviews the response of the criminal justice system to the problem of wife assault by focusing on the key players within the system. The way the criminal law applies to wife assault affects battered women's access to that area of law known as family law, with negative repercussions for them and their children. Several myths about the nature of wife assault help ensure an inappropriate response. These include the myths that the woman is to blame, that by just leaving the abusive situation she can resolve it, and that if she does not leave it is because she enjoys the abuse. The author reviews current methods used by police, prosecutors and judges for dealing with wife assault and discusses the inadequacies of those methods. She concludes that despite many recommendations for change, there have been no significant improvements in the way the criminal justice system deals with wife assault. It is incumbent upon the legal profession to demonstrate professional responsibility by ensuring that wife assault is taken more seriously than it is now and than it has been in the past. This is a necessary reform before battered women can rely on the criminal justice system.

scholarly journals Legality Letter of Statement of Khilaf in Indonesia Criminal Justice System

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Rugun Romaida Hutabarat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Criminal Matters

In criminal law, a person charged with a criminal offense may be punished if it meets two matters, namely his act is unlawful, and the perpetrator of a crime may be liable for the indicated action (the offender's error) or the act may be dismissed to the perpetrator, and there is no excuse. The reasons may result in the death or the removal of the implied penalty. But it becomes a matter of how if the Letter of Statement Khilaf is the answer to solve the legal problems. The person who refuses or does not do what has been stated in the letters is often called "wanprestasi" because the statement is categorized as an agreement. The statement includes an agreement which is the domain of civil law or criminal law, so its application in the judicial system can be determined. This should be reviewed in the application of the law, are there any rules governing wrong statements in the criminal justice system. By using a declaration of khilaf as a way out of criminal matters, then the statement should be known in juridical rules. This study uses normative juridical methods, by conceptualizing the law as a norm rule which is a benchmark of human behavior, with emphasis on secondary data sources collected from the primary source of the legislation. The result of this research is that the statement of khilaf has legality, it is based on Jurisprudence No. 3901 K / Pdt / 1985 jo Article 189 Paragraph (1) of Indonesian criminal procedure law. However, this oversight letter needs to be verified in front of the court to be valid evidence, but this letter of error is not a deletion of a criminal offense, because the culpability of the defendant has justified the crime he committed. Such recognition, cannot make it free from the crime that has been committed.Keywords: Legality, Letter of Statement, Criminal Justice System

scholarly journals Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sean J. Mallett
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Regional Disparity ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Synthesis Approach

<p>One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This paper will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the paper will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.</p>

scholarly journals Discreet Discretion and Moderate Moderation in Judicial Sentencing: A commentary on Kenya’s Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Harrison O Mbori
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Criminal Sentencing ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Sentencing Policy

Criminal sentencing is an integral part in any judicial system for the fair administration of justice. The process of sentencing and the standards applied by judicial officers has, however, been a notoriously difficult component in many criminal law systems. In Kenya, sentencing has been blamed as one of the sources of ‘popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice’ to borrow from Roscoe Pound. This was the impetus for the Kenyan Judiciary to introduce the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 (SPGs). This paper is a general commentary, critique, and analysis of the SPGs. The author argues that SPGs come at an instructive epoch in Kenya’s economic, socio-political, and cultural development. This contribution is not a polemic on the Kenyan SPGs. The commentary makes sideglances to various jurisdictions that have had a longer experience with sentencing guidelines. The article forecasts that Kenyan SPGs will, despite its few shortcomings, nevertheless, prove to be important for all judicial officers involved in Kenya’s criminal justice system.

The Criminal Justice System: Materials on the Administration and Reform of the Criminal Law

1980 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
James Lindgren ◽  
Franklin E. Zimring ◽  
Richard S. Frase
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System

Probation and Parole Statistics

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Tax Base ◽  
Improve Treatment ◽  
Treatment Services ◽  
Probation And Parole ◽  
Federal Assistance

There are more than 2,000 probation agencies in the United States, and staff in these agencies rely heavily on a long list of case plan agreements to get their clients to obey the laws and other societal rules. Yet, the list of rules, themselves, create overwhelming challenges for those on probation and parole, especially those who suffer from drug addiction, mental illness, and physical and cognitive disabilities. A reduced tax-base reduces federal assistance but at the same time increases the criminal justice system. Thus, funding intended to improve treatment services for those on probation has been used to improve the criminal justice system itself. Unfortunately, residents involved with the criminal justice system have concluded the laws are wholly illegitimate. The opening chapter presents the theme of the book: the cyclical nature of the use of recidivism reduction risk assessment instruments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document