The Criminal Justice system in Ghana defines a crime as an act against the state rather than an act against the individual and the community at large. It focuses more on punishment and retributive justice instead of restorative justice, which takes into consideration the victims, and healing the harm caused them. Victims often feel vulnerable and defenseless. Some even feel twice victimized, first by the offender and then by an uncaring criminal justice system that does not make adequate provision for them be it physical, psychological or material. They often play a totally inactive role in the criminal justice system; oftentimes they are even deprived of basic assistance or information.
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
Retributivists claim that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crime. Retributivists give desert a central place but only to a latter sense of desert as a demerit, or what we might call retributivist desert. Someone is thought to have desert not merely on the account of his committing a wrongful act, but on the account of his committing illegal act. There are many actions that are wrong, but not punishable because they are not illegal act. Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking.
When policy and claimsmakers label crimes as social problems, they do not always account for all representations of crime. They neglect to realize that crime is a reality that filters through a series of human decisions running the full scale of the criminal justice system (Silver 265). Jeffery Reiman states within “A Crime by Any Other Name” that, “although there is a wide range of behaviors that the law defines as criminal, people tend to view crime as involving only certain kinds of acts committed by particular populations of individuals”. For example, the rhetoric presented within the War on Terror in the United States lead to moral panic which exaggerated and distorted perceived deviant behavior (Silver 330). Similarly, the rhetoric presented
The issue of the death penalty is becoming excessively actual nowadays, especially due to the idea of humanization. Both the supporters as well as the opponents of the death penalty are claiming that their position is the correct one. While some of them speak about the justice, the commensurate with the criminal act deterrent, or the lack of possibility to perform a criminal act once more, their opponents argue these claims with substantial proves. The opponents of the capital punishment in the criminal justice system claim that the costs for death penalty overcome the costs for keeping a person in prison. Moreover, they point at the lack of justice and fairness in the process of capital punishment determination and the possibility for an innocent
It is possible that society can intervene to reduce or prevent many forms of violence, but insufficient information on what are hate crimes, their effects, why does it affect us and it’s importance. Many communities are not taking the necessary steps to inform and instruct people about these violations, which is why I believe that this would make a great research topic for this class. We can use this opportunity to inform ourselves of what a hate crime entitles and what we can do to stop them. We must all work together to make stop hate crimes, because the lack of knowledge and action against these crimes is leaving groups of people feeling isolated, vulnerable and worthless. In the power-filled words that were proclaimed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960’s "… we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream" (Martin Luther King Jr. 1963).
However, one may argue that you can use people with mental issues who do crimes are evil. But, I believe that is an irrational fallacy because they aren’t mentally intact enough to make competent decisions. Speaking of crime, this leads me to my
When a crime is committed and an individual is caught in the act, there is a set process that one follows to adhere to the rules of the criminal justice system. This method can be simplified by looking at the common flow of events: (1) an individual is arrested, (2) individual is brought to court, (3) individual receives a punishment. Though it may appear that the way in which the criminal justice system functions is sufficient, many voice the concern that there are certain key players affected by crimes that are consistently disregarded. These players are otherwise known as the victims and the community. As a result, many have hypothesized a new approach to justice that incorporate all aspects of crime.
In Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of crime. Through Raskolnikov’s ability to rationalize murder and evil, Dostoevsky challenges the concept of what a crime is. By depicting Raskolnikov in a way that he rationalizes his acts, it can be understood that the concept of crime is dependent on the situation and the outcome. With this, one can question whether crime will remain as a crime even if it results in the benefit of the majority of the population. In this paper, I will be arguing the concept of what crime is through the situations and the outcomes shown in Crime and Punishment, with the help of true to life crimes.
The reliability of Mr Eadie’s role as a witness was undermined because of this finding and it negatively affected his defence of criminal incapacity. The court’s pragmatic distinction between a “loss of control” and a “loss of temper” was visible in Mr Eadie’s behavior, and this contributed to his unsuccessful reliance on the defence of pathological incapacity due to provocation and emotional stress. According to Professor Shannon Hoctor there is, in principle, “no reason why a court will refuse to entertain a plea of non-pathological incapacity predicated upon the provocation associated with road rage”, explaining that if the principle is applied correctly, with no sympathy involved, the