Recent orders
The Criminal Justice System
Delegitimisation of the Criminal Justice System Through Racial Bias
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
The Criminal Justice System
The criminal justice system has a very important role in society. Based on various criminology theories which depict the path to crime and offending, society plays an important role. Most of the theories propose the role of social learning as a key contributor to offending. Other theories propose a connection between crime and social labeling. The key connection between such theories is the role that society has in crime development. Given that crime also occurs within society, the criminal justice system exists to ensure that crime is prevented, mitigated, or corrected. For the criminal justice system to effectively accomplish its main function, it needs to have various key characteristics. The duties of the system are embedded within the constitution and must therefore respect the key tenets of the constitution. For example, one of the key tenets of the constitution is equality before the law. Unfortunately, the criminal justice seems to be flawed with the discriminatory treatment of communities of color, such as African Americans, compared to their white counterparts. These discriminatory practices affect the various components of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, the judicial component, and the correctional systems. Ultimately, these discriminatory practices will eventually lead to the delegitimization of the criminal justice system.
There’s a rich conversation these days about the role that racial bias may play in decisions made by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. There have been reports that show a troubling pattern of discrimination in the way criminal cases are handled. Racial bias, also known as racial prejudice or racial discrimination, is prejudice or discrimination based on the race of the person experiencing it. The term has often been used to describe negative behavior toward African Americans or members of certain minority groupsADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Johnson”,”given”:”Robert”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Crim. Just.”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2006″]]},”page”:”1″,”publisher”:”HeinOnline”,”title”:”Racial bias in the criminal justice system and why we should care”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”21″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=2ae49844-7799-480a-b6ea-71c53a738995″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Johnson, 2006)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Johnson, 2006)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Johnson, 2006)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Johnson, 2006). But the same phenomenon can also occur with attitudes toward other marginalized (and non-minority) groups, such as transgender people.
The racialization of the criminal justice system is sometimes a result of implicit bias. Implicit biases refer to the fact that we don’t realize that our attitudes are biased and that they lead us to think, act, and react in ways that are harmful to others. These unconscious biases may cause us to treat people differently depending on their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The unconscious characteristic of these biases occurs because they are intertwined with facts and statistics, which are interpreted in the wrong way. For example, African Americans have lower socioeconomic status, which gives them less access to education and safe neighborhoods, among other thingsADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0011-1384″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Clair”,”given”:”Matthew”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Winter”,”given”:”Alix S”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Criminology”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2016″]]},”page”:”332-359″,”publisher”:”Wiley Online Library”,”title”:”How judges think about racial disparities: Situational decision‐making in the criminal justice system”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”54″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=bf126191-d5b7-481c-ad14-0fb83e531dfa”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Clair & Winter, 2016)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Clair & Winter, 2016)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Clair & Winter, 2016)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Clair & Winter, 2016). These factors lead to disproportionate rates of crime for black Americans. African Americans are also more likely to plead guilty and less likely to use an attorney. Because of these factors, African Americans in the criminal justice system face longer sentences and harsher penalties than whites convicted in similar cases. However, despite this evidence, an overwhelming majority of judges believe that race is not a factor in sentencing decisionsADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0011-1384″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Clair”,”given”:”Matthew”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Winter”,”given”:”Alix S”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Criminology”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2016″]]},”page”:”332-359″,”publisher”:”Wiley Online Library”,”title”:”How judges think about racial disparities: Situational decision‐making in the criminal justice system”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”54″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=bf126191-d5b7-481c-ad14-0fb83e531dfa”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Clair & Winter, 2016)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Clair & Winter, 2016)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Clair & Winter, 2016)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Clair & Winter, 2016). From the implicit bias argument, judges do not treat white offenders more favorably than nonwhite offenders. However, judges are more likely to be influenced by the evidence of race-based disparities when they are given information about crime rates or sentences handed down by other courts.
Law Enforcement
People do not always get arrested because they commit crimes. But research has demonstrated that people do get arrested because they appear to be criminals. From grounded theory research, this originates from social labeling theories that explain the social process of crime as resulting from the negative labels placed on individuals. Police make hundreds of thousands of arrests every year, many for non-criminal “quality-of-life” offenses like selling loose marijuana and selling alcohol without a license. For example, recent news reports have highlighted the role of implicit racial biases in “shaking down” black men by law enforcement officials—an illegal tactic known as “stop-and-frisk.” Unarmed black men are also much more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white men. Many people end up behind bars and in prison because others (i.e., police, prosecutors, juries) can identify them as criminals by their race, ethnicity, perceived status, neighborhood residence, prior criminal history—or a combination of all of these characteristicsADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0192-3234″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Tonry”,”given”:”Michael”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Crime and justice”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2010″]]},”page”:”273-312″,”publisher”:”The University of Chicago Press”,”title”:”The social, psychological, and political causes of racial disparities in the American criminal justice system”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”39″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=75acdb36-36f0-475d-a54e-d87667d6cb49″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Tonry, 2010)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Tonry, 2010)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Tonry, 2010)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Tonry, 2010). Police are more likely to stop people of color for minor crimes like loitering or trespassing. They may also arrest people for drug offenses when there is no evidence that the person is actually selling drugs. Some research indicates this practice has led to conviction rates that are many times higher for black men than white men.
Judicial System
Minorities are underrepresented on juries. Defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death by all-white juries than they are by racially mixed juries. This is true even when the trial judge rules out racial bias. Criminal defendants and society as a whole are affected by racial and gender bias in jury selection. These problems are compounded by the fact that black people are much less likely to have access to legal representation than white people. The idea that everyone deserves quality legal counsel is a central part of our system of justiceADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”1740-1453″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Burch”,”given”:”Traci”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Journal of Empirical Legal Studies”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”3″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2015″]]},”page”:”395-420″,”publisher”:”Wiley Online Library”,”title”:”Skin color and the criminal justice system: Beyond black‐white disparities in sentencing”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”12″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=8884f831-92cd-4054-97a4-c63842b023e7″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Burch, 2015)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Burch, 2015)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Burch, 2015)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Burch, 2015). When African Americans can’t afford lawyers, however, they are often forced to accept deals that they wouldn’t otherwise take—or even agree to deals when no deals are offered at all.
Another indicator of racial bias in the criminal justice system is the length and conditions of sentences and parole for different races. For instance, a black person convicted of murder is more likely to spend time on death row than a white person convicted of murder. As well, black people generally spend more time on probation than white people facing similar chargesADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”2153-3687″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Rocque”,”given”:”Michael”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Race and justice”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”3″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2011″]]},”page”:”292-315″,”publisher”:”SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA”,”title”:”Racial disparities in the criminal justice system and perceptions of legitimacy: A theoretical linkage”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”1″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=b2724f60-61a7-414a-b0a1-3d95548ea14b”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Rocque, 2011)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Rocque, 2011)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Rocque, 2011)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Rocque, 2011). This seems to indicate that there is some level of discrimination against black people in terms of how the law treats them.
Criminal Correctional and Rehabilitating System
Recent conversations about race and criminal justice have focused on equity and a deep concern with systemic racism. But more than 40 years of research has demonstrated the devastating effects of the prison system on men, women, and communities of color. The abolitionist framework is a way to frame racial justice activism in an effort for fair treatment of the communities of color. To abolish means “to get rid of” or “to do away with.” It is a strategic term that suggests a process of change and a radical goal to end all racial disparities in our criminal justice system. An important starting point is from the premise that the prison industrial complex is an inherently racist system, not simply because it is discriminatory, but because it is based on racist ideologies and practicesADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0897-6546″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Cleve”,”given”:”Nicole Gonzalez”,”non-dropping-particle”:”Van”,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Mayes”,”given”:”Lauren”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Law & Social Inquiry”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2015″]]},”page”:”406-432″,”publisher”:”Cambridge University Press”,”title”:”Criminal justice through “colorblind” lenses: A call to examine the mutual constitution of race and criminal justice”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”40″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=34589f29-c535-4d0a-bef7-e6a324250ca2″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015). Looking at who commits crimes and who is arrested for these crimes, the figures show that while black people make up roughly 13% of the overall population in the US, they represent about 40% of incarcerated inmates. This seems to indicate some degree of racial bias in the justice system.
The abolitionist framework offers a way to problematize the many different components of this system. It begins with understanding how race affects who goes to prison in the first place. It then assesses potential solutions and advocates for their implementation at state and local levelsADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”1043-9862″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Cochran”,”given”:”Joshua C”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Warren”,”given”:”Patricia Y”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Journal of contemporary criminal justice”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2012″]]},”page”:”206-227″,”publisher”:”Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA”,”title”:”Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in perceptions of the police: The salience of officer race within the context of racial profiling”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”28″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=ebb97614-ed41-49c8-8669-8c750cd7210a”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Cochran & Warren, 2012). And finally, it advocates for race- and gender-blind evaluations of practices to ensure that communities of color and women receive the same types of services.
The Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System
The higher rates of contact with the criminal justice system by the nonwhite minorities contribute to the perception of the criminal justice system as biased against certain racial groups. During contact with the criminal justice system, a higher rate turns into successful convictions leading to the imprisonment of nonwhite minorities such as African Americans as compared to their white counterparts. This leads people of color who have been convicted to have higher levels of cynicism about the criminal justice system than whites whose convictions have not resulted in imprisonmentADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0734-0168″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Buckler”,”given”:”Kevin”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Wilson”,”given”:”Steve”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Hartley”,”given”:”Deborah”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Davila”,”given”:”Mario”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Criminal Justice Review”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”3″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2011″]]},”page”:”269-290″,”publisher”:”SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA”,”title”:”Racial and ethnic perceptions of injustice: Does prior personal and vicarious incarceration experience alter the racial/ethnic gap in perceptions of injustice?”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”36″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=722d0b17-e14b-4699-84a3-e7d75ab9f99d”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Buckler et al., 2011)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Buckler et al., 2011)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Buckler et al., 2011)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Buckler et al., 2011). Though blacks and Hispanics are incarcerated at higher rates than whites, they are not more likely to be arrested than whites. Thus, because white offenders are less likely to be convicted of crimes, they may have lower levels of cynicism about the criminal justice system than their minority counterpartsADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”1043-9862″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Cochran”,”given”:”Joshua C”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Warren”,”given”:”Patricia Y”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Journal of contemporary criminal justice”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2012″]]},”page”:”206-227″,”publisher”:”Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA”,”title”:”Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in perceptions of the police: The salience of officer race within the context of racial profiling”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”28″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=ebb97614-ed41-49c8-8669-8c750cd7210a”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Cochran & Warren, 2012). The legitimacy of the criminal justice system is therefore affected because of the negative views of the criminal justice system among nonwhite individuals whose backgrounds have led them to rely on public assistance more frequently.
In the United States, one of the most serious and pervasive manifestations of systemic racism is the differential treatment of racial/ethnic minorities by law enforcement. Ethical discussions about inequality in policing typically focus on fairness and fairness procedures. Yet, a major obstacle to achieving procedural justice has been a lack of data on police behavior. Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork with nearly 400 Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers, Rosenbaum et al. present evidence that not only does there exist a pronounced culture of disrespect among many LAPD officers for members of racial/ethnic minority groups but that these attitudes lead to systematic variations in conduct during police-citizen interactions that result in discriminatory policing practices across Los Angeles’s diverse communitiesADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”1572-8315″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Rosenbaum”,”given”:”Dennis P”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Lawrence”,”given”:”Daniel S”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Hartnett”,”given”:”Susan M”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”McDevitt”,”given”:”Jack”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Posick”,”given”:”Chad”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Journal of Experimental Criminology”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”3″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2015″]]},”page”:”335-366″,”publisher”:”Springer”,”title”:”Measuring procedural justice and legitimacy at the local level: the police–community interaction survey”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”11″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=3ed10a08-d43d-49e5-b025-543b6a2c71a7″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Rosenbaum et al., 2015)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Rosenbaum et al., 2015)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Rosenbaum et al., 2015)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Rosenbaum et al., 2015). The researchers focus on the development of the Police–Community Interaction Survey (PCIS), a new tool for measuring patterns of police conduct at the local level, and its implications for understanding discrimination in policing.
Ethnographers observed police-citizen interactions at every level, from traffic, stops to car chases to serving warrants to responding to domestic violence calls, and recorded five types of police behavior: issuing commands, making suggestions, giving explanations, inviting participation in decision making, and giving reasons for actions taken. The PCIS is a new tool for measuring police behavior at the local levelADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”2153-3687″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Rocque”,”given”:”Michael”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Race and justice”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”3″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2011″]]},”page”:”292-315″,”publisher”:”SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA”,”title”:”Racial disparities in the criminal justice system and perceptions of legitimacy: A theoretical linkage”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”1″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=b2724f60-61a7-414a-b0a1-3d95548ea14b”]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Rocque, 2011)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Rocque, 2011)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Rocque, 2011)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Rocque, 2011). The PCIS was designed from the ground up to collect ethnographic data, and it includes three scales that measure three types of police behavior: authoritative, coercive, and confrontational. In addition, the survey asks participants about their perceptions of discriminatory policing practices in their communities. Drawing on these data sources, Rosenbaum et al. document a surprisingly high level of procedural injustice among LAPD officers in Los Angeles. This finding can be interpreted as evidence that both personalistic and structural forces contribute to the differential treatment of racial/ethnic minorities by law enforcement.
Rebuttal of Opposing View
For example, there are many statistics suggesting the black community itself may not be totally blameless for the level of crime it experiences. For instance, according to an analysis released by Pew Charitable Trusts in 2013, black children are almost four times more likely to live in poverty than white children. Secondly, only 52% of black men over the age of 25 were working full-time jobs as compared with 77% for white people over 25 years old. Poverty and unemployment rates have a well-established correlation in scholarly literatureADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”1043-9862″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Cochran”,”given”:”Joshua C”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Warren”,”given”:”Patricia Y”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Journal of contemporary criminal justice”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2012″]]},”page”:”206-227″,”publisher”:”Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA”,”title”:”Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in perceptions of the police: The salience of officer race within the context of racial profiling”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”28″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=ebb97614-ed41-49c8-8669-8c750cd7210a”]},{“id”:”ITEM-2″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0897-6546″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Cleve”,”given”:”Nicole Gonzalez”,”non-dropping-particle”:”Van”,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Mayes”,”given”:”Lauren”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Law & Social Inquiry”,”id”:”ITEM-2″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2015″]]},”page”:”406-432″,”publisher”:”Cambridge University Press”,”title”:”Criminal justice through “colorblind” lenses: A call to examine the mutual constitution of race and criminal justice”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”40″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=34589f29-c535-4d0a-bef7-e6a324250ca2”]},{“id”:”ITEM-3″,”itemData”:{“author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Johnson”,”given”:”Robert”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Crim. Just.”,”id”:”ITEM-3″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2006″]]},”page”:”1″,”publisher”:”HeinOnline”,”title”:”Racial bias in the criminal justice system and why we should care”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”21″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=2ae49844-7799-480a-b6ea-71c53a738995″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Johnson, 2006; Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Johnson, 2006; Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Johnson, 2006; Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Johnson, 2006; Van Cleve & Mayes, 2015). Therefore, it is expected that as a result of these conditions, a proportional difference is expected for some of the minority communities, such as African Americans, who have higher rates of unemployment and lower standards of living compared to their white counterparts. Unfortunately, the statistics in the criminal justice system reveal incarceration rates for the minority communities such as African Americans, which significantly exceeds the expected variationsADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”1043-9862″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Cochran”,”given”:”Joshua C”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Warren”,”given”:”Patricia Y”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Journal of contemporary criminal justice”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2012″]]},”page”:”206-227″,”publisher”:”Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA”,”title”:”Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in perceptions of the police: The salience of officer race within the context of racial profiling”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”28″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=ebb97614-ed41-49c8-8669-8c750cd7210a”]},{“id”:”ITEM-2″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0192-3234″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Tonry”,”given”:”Michael”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Crime and justice”,”id”:”ITEM-2″,”issue”:”1″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2010″]]},”page”:”273-312″,”publisher”:”The University of Chicago Press”,”title”:”The social, psychological, and political causes of racial disparities in the American criminal justice system”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”39″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=75acdb36-36f0-475d-a54e-d87667d6cb49″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Tonry, 2010)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Tonry, 2010)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Tonry, 2010)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Cochran & Warren, 2012; Tonry, 2010). By looking at the error rate for the whites and African Americans, it is also possible to see the racial bias of the judicial system. The error rate in the judicial system is 4 percent for whites and 11 percent for African-Americans and Hispanics, respectively.
According to Tonry (2010), it is not simply a matter of more black people being arrested than whites because more blacks commit crimes. If that were true, then the statistics would not only show more blacks arrested but also more blacks convicted of drug crimes. However, this is not the case. Blacks are less likely to be arrested for these crimes but more likely to be convicted of the offenseADDIN CSL_CITATION {“citationItems”:[{“id”:”ITEM-1″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”0011-1384″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Clair”,”given”:”Matthew”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””},{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Winter”,”given”:”Alix S”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Criminology”,”id”:”ITEM-1″,”issue”:”2″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2016″]]},”page”:”332-359″,”publisher”:”Wiley Online Library”,”title”:”How judges think about racial disparities: Situational decision‐making in the criminal justice system”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”54″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=bf126191-d5b7-481c-ad14-0fb83e531dfa”]},{“id”:”ITEM-2″,”itemData”:{“ISSN”:”1740-1453″,”author”:[{“dropping-particle”:””,”family”:”Burch”,”given”:”Traci”,”non-dropping-particle”:””,”parse-names”:false,”suffix”:””}],”container-title”:”Journal of Empirical Legal Studies”,”id”:”ITEM-2″,”issue”:”3″,”issued”:{“date-parts”:[[“2015″]]},”page”:”395-420″,”publisher”:”Wiley Online Library”,”title”:”Skin color and the criminal justice system: Beyond black‐white disparities in sentencing”,”type”:”article-journal”,”volume”:”12″},”uris”:[“http://www.mendeley.com/documents/?uuid=8884f831-92cd-4054-97a4-c63842b023e7″]}],”mendeley”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Burch, 2015; Clair & Winter, 2016)”,”plainTextFormattedCitation”:”(Burch, 2015; Clair & Winter, 2016)”,”previouslyFormattedCitation”:”(Burch, 2015; Clair & Winter, 2016)”},”properties”:{“noteIndex”:0},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”}(Burch, 2015; Clair & Winter, 2016). This suggests that race plays a role in prosecutorial charging and sentencing decisions, rather than simply racial differences in offending rates.
There are racial differences in patterns of criminal activity, with black offenders being more likely than whites to commit certain types of violent crime, which carry long sentences if they are caught for them. This is why the use of race in law enforcement decisions cannot be solely explained by the harsher treatment of black offenders. One explanation for racial disparities is that blacks are disadvantaged—economically, socially, and politically—and this disadvantages them in terms of being able to obtain legal representation, being able to afford bail, being able to accommodate their jobs or family responsibilities during court dates, and so on. Because they are disadvantaged, blacks are more likely to accept plea bargains that involve more prison
Political Theory
Political Theory
(Author’s name)
(Institutional Affiliation)
Choose one stanza from “Song of Myself” and discuss the political implications.
Song of Myself is a poem by an American poet Walt Whitman that is published among other works in his work Leaves of Grass. The poem is filled with numerous, significant details, although this paper will look only at one of them found in the sixth stanza of the poem. A child asks the narrator of the poem to explain what grass is (Whitman, 1955). To answer this question, the narrator has to use his own utilization of imagery and symbolism and his incapability to break down things to crucial principles. The bunches of grass the child is holding thus becomes a symbol of the nature of regeneration. Nevertheless, they also indicate or signify a common material that connects all the different individuals throughout the United States.
Therefore, one can view or understand grass as an excellent example or symbol of democracy, because it grows everywhere even on top of graves. In the era and age of civil war, the same grass reminds the author of the poem of graves (Whitman, 1955), and even though the graves hold dead people, grass does not discriminate as it grows even on their graves. This also points out to another implication that everyone will have to die eventually. The natural roots of grass or democracy, in this matter, also are mortal, and they are vulnerable to death whether, as a result, of bloodshed and killing found in warfare or because of natural causes. While in other cases Whitman succeeds in this kind of imagery and symbolism, in this case it troubles him a little. He says that he could be able to interpret or understand where the boundary of the difference that exists between saying nothing and covering everything starts or ends.
The difficult the author experiences in trying to explain to the child what grass is means that even he cannot describe the democratic nature fully and especially if he is explaining it to individuals who cannot quite understand or comprehend it. Democracy here is shown as a complicated and challenging issue that individuals have to see how it works, and observe it so as to understand it. The only thing the author can tell the child is that he sees and experiences grass or democracy in young women and men (Whitman, 1955), meaning that democracy can be present in all people.
The author then takes this metaphor explanation further by telling the child that even the grass that has died (Whitman, 1955), or democracy that has diminished and the one that is forgotten is part of the whole, and is not treated separately. The poem Song to Myself explores and balances the themes of collectivity and individuality as two essential components for democratic experiments in the United States. The sixth section of this poem, therefore, is one of the essential ones in the whole text. This is because grass here is used as a symbol of hope and democracy. The poem and the author most likely wanted to liken grass to democracy because just as grass reaches every part of the world, so does democracy. When allowed to grow, democracy expands and covers all people including men and women.
Describe Nietzsche’s epistemology and discuss possible political implications of such thought
The two fundamental notions and ideas in understanding epistemology and metaphysics of Nietzsche are the will to power and perspectivism. Perspectivism can be described as the view or notion that our understanding and knowledge are conditioned or determined by how we view it. Therefore, to see something, one must be in a certain time and in a particular place and view or see it from a certain perspective. One, therefore, cannot see s thing from any perspective all the time. Therefore, we cannot see the thing, but its perspective then knowledge only occurs within a certain perspective (Nietzsche, 1882).
For this philosopher, this destructs knowledge, as it is traditionally understood. Knowledge is only knowledge of the whole, not just some part of the whole, because seeing and understanding knowledge as such is illusionary and deceptive. Another perspective of this idea is that whatever knowledge we have is just and nothing else but human knowledge. This knowledge is conditioned by and based on our human faculties and human processes. This, however, presents a problem to Nietzsche. The issue with his perspectivism is that they conclude or derive from the fact that real knowledge is impossible and that humans only have and are left with only some parts of knowledge and not the whole knowledge (Nietzsche, 1882).
The other major part in the epistemology of Nietzsche is the will to power. Most his work is build around this idea. The will to power is generally a force within individuals that drives them to live and survive. People live and survive by forcing other individuals and reality to obey and succumb to their power. The will to power drives individuals to think about the others and the world in the way that they do. They subscribe order, meaning, understanding and knowledge to the world because of the will to power (Nietzsche, 1882). In a sense, the philosopher anticipates pragmatism.
In his view, truth is not what corresponds or goes in line with reality, rather what allows individuals to attain their power and goals. Reason, therefore, only represent the expediency of a particular species or race, their utility is their only truth. Reason, truth and knowledge have little to do with the real world. They only affect how well individuals and other species control others to survive. As the philosopher argues, the real world could be completely different from what our understanding and reasoning points out and from what our minds hold as the truth, however, this has little to do with anything. So long as truth and reason enable is to have control and power, which is still essential and relevant. The criterion of truth, thereby, resides in the enhancement of power feelings (Nietzsche, 1882).
In Nietzsche’s epistemology, the will to power indicates that real things are the things that people can have power over and the things that individuals do. The classical ideas of knowledge and truth, therefore, are ineffectual and passive. For Nietzsche, there are signs and meaningless of weakness. Strength comes in actively to create one’s reality world. One of the interesting things in this theory is that the philosopher takes all of reasoning and experience and claims that it does not lead to any sort of real or true world. Trust in reason and its functions and valuation of logic prove only its use in life (Nietzsche, 1882).
References
Nietzsche, F. (1882). The Gay Science: Twilight of the Idols. New York: Vintage Books.
Whitman, W. (1955). Song of Myself. New York: Democratic Vistas.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Youth Justice Legislation
This chapter focuses on the recent changes to the Youth justice system, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the Crime and Security Act 2010 and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The analysis of these acts will help in assessing the effectiveness of the youth justice legislation with the fundamental aim of reducing offending by children and youths in London.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
The Act made makes fundamental changes in various aspects of Wales and England’s criminal justice system. It transforms the law that relates to early release of prisoners to curb the problem of overcrowding in prisons and custodial sentences. The act also reduces the right of the officers in charge of prisons to take industrial actions and changes the law on deportation as it relates to foreign criminals. The Bill that generated this act was introduced into the House of Commons on the 26th of June, 2007.
It set out the new powers regarding the manner in which violent and antisocial behavior ought to be dealt with, cleared decisions on sentencing and introduced a brand new sentence on children and young people. The Bill was seen as a critical component of the government’s commitment to delivering efficient and effective criminal justice system that rebalances the system to favour the majority of the people that are law-abiding. It reduces crime committed by young people and protects the general public.
Over the 2006-07 sessions, the key areas of focus included taking care of the needs of victims and also tightening the processes of trial in the situations where the offender fails to appear in court for justifiable reasons. It also created new powers of dealing with violent and antisocial behaviours. Furthermore, it created a new offence to assist in dealing with pornography that gains popularity with the passing of time. The session also addressed the manner of making sentence decision clearer than they were before and addressing imbalances relating to overturning convictions and releasing offenders. Finally, it focused on the idea of bringing compensation for the wrongly convicted persons to match the compensation given to the crime victims.
With regards to non-custodial sentencing, section 1 of the Act provides a very comprehensive list of the community referred to as youth rehabilitation orders. These orders are imposable to the offenders who are under the age of 18. The orders can be imposed in the cases where the offense committed cannot be imprisoned. This changed the old law where the criteria provided in the new Act was not deemed necessary. Section 11 of the Act focuses on adult offenders and provides that the orders cannot be imposed unless the offense can be imprisoned or the offender is duly fined without additional punishment. In section 35, the Act puts an extension on the availability of order referrals relating to sentences that rehabilitate the young offenders. In the previous law, the orders were only available to the first offenders and were passed on offenders with history of past convictions.
The Act also has provisions for dangerous offenders. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 had introduced compulsory sentencing for sexual and violent offenders with judicial discretions that were significantly reduced. This in turn increased the life sentences and contributed to overcrowding in the prisons. This was a very big crisis that needed to be addressed urgently. As such, sections 13 and 17 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 brought a restoration of a proportion of discretion in judicial terms and imposed criteria that were stricter than the previous one with regards to imposing the sentences. Section 25 of the new Act gave provisions for the automatic early release of those prisoners that were serving extended sentences. This was opposed to the discretionary release initially by the Parole Board.
The Act also had provisions touching on curfew. The law already had provisions on the power of the courts to impose curfews and the power to order a defendant to have an electronic tag for monitoring compliance. Section 21 introduced the power that enabled the courts imposing custodial sentences to demand half of the time the defendant was on curfew be counted as time served towards his sentence so long as the curfew was active for a minimum of 9 hours each day and monitored by the tag. This section came to active force and found application in 2008.
The Act had provisions for obscene publications, a habit that was also gaining popularity among the young people. Section 71 increased the maximum sentence regarding the publication of obscene articles. This was meant to instill fear among those who have the bad habit of publishing such obscenities and reduce them substantially. Section 63 created a new offense that regarded the possession of extreme pornographic images. It described an image as extreme if it is disgusting, extremely offensive and is of obscene character. Where the act was life threatening the sentence could go for a maximum of three years while if it results to an injury of a person’s genitals, breasts or anus, the sentence could go for a period of 2 years. Section 64 does not include classified works. However, it does state that extracts arising from classified works are no exception where it is of a nature that must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted. The Act focuses on the issue of child pornography and defines indecent photographs in the 1978 Protection of Children’s Act. Section 72 of the Act does an amendment of the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 to cover extraterritorial jurisdiction in regards to sexual offenses against children living overseas.
Matters relating to hate crimes are also well provided for in the Act. Under section 74 and schedule 16, part 3A of the Public Order Act of 1986 is amended to cover hate crime legislation. This covers hatred against a group of persons that are defined through reference to sexual orientation. It does not matter whether this hatred is performed on persons of the same sex, opposite sex or even both.
There are also provisions with regards to nuclear terrorism under section 75 and Schedule 17, which make very significant amendments to the 1983 Nuclear Material (Offences) Act. The section and schedule extends it to include extraterritorial jurisdiction and to increased the penalties previously imposed. It also creates brand new offences regarding nuclear terrorism that pertains to radioactive and nuclear materials, again, with extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The Act also creates violent offender orders made by a magistrate’s court under its section 101. This is meant to control the violent offenders. They are also similar to the antisocial behaviour orders. The orders are very critical in protecting the public from the risks caused by violent harms from the offenders.
The miscellaneous parts of the act touch on matters such as the early release of prisoners. Section 26 brought about the release date of the prisoners serving more than 4 years to be imposed before the 4th of April 2005. This did not apply to the prisoners serving life sentences. The intention was to reduce the crisis of prison overcrowding. Section 54 created an assumption that the hearing of an adult offender can continue without his presence in the event that he fails to attend a magistrate’s court.
The Act does not fail to touch on antisocial behaviours exhibited by some children and many youths today. Section 118 created a new part to the Antisocial Behaviour Act of 2003. It permits the police and other local authorities to apply for a court order for residential premises known for persistent nuisance and noise. Section 119 created a new offense that causes disturbance and nuisance to a member of staff of the National Health Service. It is not subject to imprisonment but carries heavy fines. The Act also prohibits the prisons officers from striking as this may have detrimental effects to the committing of crime.
In a nutshell, The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 changes the Youth Justice system and addresses pertinent issues touching on them. It comprehensively addresses the criminal activities associated with the young people and imposes orders and penalties. This gives the courts the direction and authority to deal with the cases appropriately and conveniently. It effectively succeeds in reducing the cases of criminal youth offenders in London and gives a sense of direction to the judicial system. Furthermore, it curtails the right of the prison officers to organize any industrial action that may further injure the justice system.
The Crime and Security Act 2010
The Crime and Security Act 2010 came about as a result of agreement between both the houses of parliament. It received the Royal Assent in April 2010 and is now an Act of parliament. The Bill contains a range of issues touching on the youths and seeking to reduce the rate at which they commit crimes. These issues are related to security matters, policing and crime.
It reduces the information requirements regarding police searches and stops. This is very crucial in reducing crimes committed by many who would not wish to be stopped and searched. As such, it makes the prospective youth criminals fear being searched and found very easily. Essentially, this contributes to the reduction of the crime rates especially among the antisocial and disturbing youth population.
The Act also establishes redefined time limits regarding the retention of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints. This was as a result of the European Court of Human Rights Judgment. It extends the circumstances in which samples can be collected. This is important and cuts on both sides of justice. Keeping the samples for too long may have injurious effects on both the defendant and victims. Sometimes, one is innocent and keeping his fingerprints for long may result into emotional torture. Setting the timelines implies providing timely justice to both the parties involved. Initially there were no timelines for keeping the samples and criminals would commit their crimes knowing that they would not be brought to book. Things changed and now this is a notion of the past.
The Act introduces new Domestic Violence Protection Notice, through which a senior police officer may require s suspect to stop molesting a victim and leave the premises pending court application. This is also very critical as it eliminates the conventional delays in the justice systems. The youth offenders who molest victims can no longer practice that for long because the court delays are not there anymore. Their antisocial and criminal behaviours can now be stopped way before the case is heard and a determination made on their innocence or guilt. In this way, the Act serves to reduce the rate at which both young people and adults commit crimes.
Moreover, the Act extends new injunctions aimed at preventing the gang related violence associated with the young people under the age of 18. Before the introduction and assent to this Bill, the law was relaxed on such injunctions and young people could commit such heinous crimes and get away with them. Times have changed and this cannot happen any longer. The Crime and Security Act 2010 has changed the events following such crimes and the perpetrators are wary of committing them.
The Act strengthens the assumption of a court making parenting order where children between 10 and 15 are convicted for antisocial behaviours. This has gone a long way in curtailing the rate at which the young people commit crimes or conduct themselves in antisocial manner. Furthermore, it makes the parents play their role effectively in disciplining their children and preparing them to be useful and law abiding members of the society. Before its inception, there were many instances where children could exhibit antisocial conduct and nothing could be done to correct them. This is because the law was effectively silent in regards to the issue. However, with the establishment of the Crime and Security Act 2010, positive outcomes have been realized and more seem to be on the way.
The Crime and Security Act 2010 also introduces new criminal offence of possessing mobile phones by prisoners. Now, more than ever before, the young people know that their freedoms will be curtailed in the prison, thus fear behaving in a manner that will land them there. When they are allowed to own weapons in prison, they feel comfortable in that they are still able to communicate with their friends and accomplishes in crime. Limiting their rights to own mobile phones while in prison is welcome news and one that should be encouraged at all costs. This is because of its impact of reducing crime by ensuring that criminals do not communicate with their colleagues in crime.
The Crime and Security Act 2010 introduces new offenses of allowing minors to access air weapons. This provision was strategically thought as minors become more aware and the awareness may be dangerous to their life and that of the society. Curtailing the right of young people to possess air weapons serves to reduce crimes that would be committed with such weapons. Minors can sometimes fail to reason maturely and use the weapons to commit crimes. Accordingly, the Act does well in curtailing such rights and bringing down the rate of crime by the minors.
The Crime and Security Act 2010 has, therefore, generated a lot of success with respect to reducing the crimes committed by the minors. Its provisions should never be regretted, but embraced by the members of the society so as to continue fighting criminal and antisocial conduct of the young people. The Act has broken the silence of the law on how to go about conducting cases relating to criminal activities of young people. It has also eliminated the laxity with which these cases were initially handled. This is through providing the security measures, and policing issues.
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
The legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 refers to a statute of the UK Parliament that created reforms to the justice system. The Bill leading to the Act was introduced to the House of Commons on June 21, 2011 and received the Royal Assent on May 1, 2012. The Bill covered a wide range of issues that serve towards the reduction of criminal activities of the children and young people.
Under Access to Justice Act 1999, the Act reverses the position in which the civil legal aid is made available for matters not specifically excluded. It specifies the type of cases for which aid is available. This is very important with regards to the practice and habit where young people deliberately commit crimes expecting to receive legal aid. When the cases are not specified and legal aid is available for any crime, young people are encouraged to engage in criminal activities since there is help in form of aid in the resulting legal battle. The act also abolished the Legal Services Commission after establishing that it was not very effective.
The Act makes changes to the provisions regarding sentencing including providing the courts with the duty, not power, to make a consideration in compensating orders where victims have suffered loss or harm. This reduces the very lengthy and detailed requirements on the courts regarding reasons for sentencing. This also allowed the courts to suspend the sentences for a maximum period of one year rather than the traditional two years. The Act also amended the power of the court to suspend the sentence.
Again in an attempt to curb the criminal activities by both young and old men and women, the Act introduced new powers to enable the courts impose curfews for more hours. Before the Act, curfews would be imposed for just few hours in a day. This was increased by the Act as some hard core criminals did not feel the impact of just few hours. Moreover, initially the curfews could be imposed for a maximum period of six months. This also changed to 12 months. This was indeed a step to tightening the grip on criminals, thereby contributing significantly to the reduction of crime rates.
The changes made also repealed the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 increasing the maximum sentence imposed by a magistrate’s court from six months to one year. This was a step towards curbing crime and curtailing the antisocial and criminal activities of young people. Furthermore, it changed the law on bail and remand. This reduced the number of the people who were unnecessarily remanded into custody.
The Act provided for the people under the age of 18 to be remanded under the local authority accommodation. It also amended the provisions relating to the release and recall of prisoners. All these aimed at reducing the rate at which both young and old people commit crimes in the UK. The effort has succeeded a great deal in reducing the rate of crimes among children and the youth.
The Act gave new powers to the Secretary of state the powers to make prison rules about employment, remuneration and deduction of the prisoners’ pay. The intention of the provision is that the prisoners should make payments to support the victims of the crime they committed. This clearly creates awareness among the prospective criminals that they would be brought to book and pay for the crimes they commit. This works towards making them shy away from committing such crimes.
The Act introduced a new offence regarding threatening with offensive weapons or article with a blade or point, which creates a risk of serious physical harm. This is necessary in order to curtail people from inflicting harm to others. The provision sets a minimum sentence of months imprisons to the offenders. Initially, this was not the case and offenders could cause such harm to the members of the society without being questioned. They would commit such crimes and get scot free. This changed with the Royal Assent to the Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
In a nutshell, the Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 provided the courts with a greater discretion to issue discharges for the young persons who plead guilty. It also expanded the Youth Rehabilitation Orders providing for longer curfew hours than previously set. It increased the maximum fines for breaches and gave the courts the power issue an order for a supervision period rather than custody after the breach. This Act also became effective in reducing the crime rates by removing the financial support for many cases involving welfare, housing, employment, medical negligence, immigration and debt. This was a major step towards reminding the criminals that they were personally responsible for their crimes and no support would be given to them in terms of legal aid whatsoever.
Conclusion
From the foregoing, the three Acts have brought fundamental transformation to the UK judicial system and changed the youth Justice system. They have contributed significantly towards the reduction of crime rates among children and the youth. The youth justice legislation system has been strengthened greatly by the Acts. The young people in London can no longer commit crimes and expect to be treated kindly. Gone are the days when people would receive legal aids after committing serious crimes, thanks to the Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The formerly crime-friendly environment has changed to become unbearable to the youths with intentions of committing crimes. The Acts are very comprehensive in the manner of their coverage of the aspects of crime. They do not leave out a single aspect. London has prospects of breeding youths who have no criminal mindsets. Faithful implementation of these Acts is the beginning of realizing a crime free UK in general and London in particular.
GALE, F., BAILEY-HARRIS, R. J., & WUNDERSITZ, J. (1990). Aboriginal Youth and The Criminal Justice System: The Injustice of Justice? Cambridge [England], Cambridge University Press
GREAT BRITAIN. (2008). Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: Chapter 4. [London], Stationery Office
GREAT BRITAIN. (2011). Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. HC Bill 205. HC Bill 205. London, Stationery Office.
GREAT BRITAIN. (2013). Fifteenth report of session 2012-13: drawing special attention to : Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/2748); Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Children Act 1989) (Children Remanded to Youth Detention Accommodation) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/2813); Customs (Inspections by Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Constabulary and the Scottish Inspectors) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/2840); Oil Stocking Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/2862). London, Stationery Office.
PICKFORD, J. (2000). Youth Justice Theory and Practice. London, Cavendish Pub. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10272601.
SMITH, R. S. (2007). Youth Justice Ideas, Policy, Practice. Cullompton, Willan Pub. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=584207. (p249)
WARD, R., & BETTINSON, V. (2008). Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: a practitioner’s guide. Bristol, Jordans.
WINTERDYK, J. (2002). Juvenile Justice Systems International Perspectives. Toronto, Ont, Canadian Scholars’ Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10191742.