The Criminal "Justice" System

Lately I have noticed that I am losing faith in the so called justice system that operates around Criminal matters in my home country and I am sure that it isn't that different abroad.

Firstly, something that fundamentally undermines the justice system is the two faced nature of people and families. When a loved one is charged with committing an offence, most people want their to be issues with the law and mistakes made on the part of the prosecution. Very few people want a loved one to serve time in a prison, so they hope that the justice system fails to deliver a guilty verdict (Even if they know their loved one is guilty of committing the offence).

However, when a family member or a friend is a victim of an offence, or when we hear about a heinous case on television we want the justice system to work. We want the person responsible to be found guilty and for the court system to render the toughest possible result upon them.

So in short, the issue is with the people involved in the system rather than the system itself I guess. We want what is right for ourselves, even if we know that isn't the right result.

Lastly, the Criminal Justice System seems to give out disproportionate penalties compared to the crime in a lot of cases. In Australia a person who commits sexual offences against children will often only go to prison for a couple of years (if that). These terrible crimes impose a life sentence on the victims who will never forget what they experienced at the hands of another, usually trusted person. Then they are released and the process repeats itself.

Recently in Australia there was a woman by the name of Jill Meyer who was brutally murdered just a few kilometers from her home just after she had called her husband to ask him to pick her up. The man responsible for her death had committed similar offences before, but had been released and allowed to destroy the lives of yet another innocent family. The cycle continues.

The priority is placed upon those responsible for the crimes as being more important 'victims' of the offence than the actual 'victim' or the family of the victim(s). The criminal justice system continues to fail to provide for people who are seeking some small amount of justice in a situation where it won't really make much of a difference to what they have lost.

As a law student, I can only hope that this will help me to attempt to right some of the wrongs in this system of 'justice'. This is more of a rant, but feel free to respond if you wish to.

You still think there is a justice system? Ha-Ha

There is a system, whether it works or not is a different question entirely.

I agree with you McM.

In the US, the big problem is that if you have a lot of money, you usually get away with a crime.

Read this crap: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/16/is-affluenza-contagious/

A teenager gets drunk, ploughs into a four people and kills them all. Gets off with probation and 'rehab' all because he suffered from "Affluenza".

Apparently, the judge decided that this little bastard should get off easy because his parents provided him with an 'affluent' life style and that he never learned right from wrong, so, he should simply get off obscenely easy. Judges like this should be removed from the bench.

The one problem with criminal justice systems in most western countries is that the liberal attitude has allowed judges way too much latitude in sentencing. This allows judges to impose little or no punishment for horrendous crimes out of politically correct motives or out of some misguided understanding of the term 'justice' itself. In the US, people who are found guilty are given soft sentences because the Judges are afraid of causing riots or other political damage to someone who usually has a lot of money or influence.

Another problem is that prison systems in most 'liberal' democracies concentrate on 'rehabilitation' of the criminal instead of punishment of the criminal.

For example, if you have a cold blooded murderer, you simply hang him as the ultimate form of deterrent - he is permanently deterred from ever murdering again. And if you do it in a very public and graphic way it tells other potential murderers that this is what will happen if you murder someone. Child molesters should have their gonads cut off (or out, as the case may be) and then hanged publicly in the county square. I guarantee that would cut down on recidivism.

Yeah, I've heard about that case >_<

Yes, and this is becoming typical of the US Criminal Justice System. And let me tell you, the Justice System in the US is criminal at times.

Law Enforcement isn't any better. In the US, any applicant to become a police officer is automatically rejected if they score over 100 on an IQ test. Read this item that will make you shudder: Court OK's Barring High IQs for Cops.

I mean, WTF?!

As a relevant metaphor - In horse training, we have an old adage, "Where skill, knowledge and intelligence ends, brutality begins". Apparently, the new opinion of the government idiots is that they want cops that are brutal and stupid right off the bat rather than cops who have two brain cells to rub together. And, apparently, in the US, the government wants policemen who are thugs rather than intelligent public servants.

I attribute this to the shift from enforcing the law to 'crime prevention'. Now, the cops go out looking for trouble in the name of 'Crime Prevention' rather than simply enforcing the law. In some states, you can be arrested under the suspicion that the police think you may commit a crime.

Then, you have stupid laws, like in a State like New Jersey, that if you commit a crime that involves several criminal offenses, they only prosecute you for the most 'severe' crime and don't bother with the other crimes.

For instance, if you rob a store with a handgun or firearm, you will, if convicted, get a minimum of 20 years without parole...

If you murder someone with a firearm, you will be out in 8 years, tops.

So, the criminal knows that if he robs the store with a gun he gets twenty years, no ifs, ands or buts. But if he robs the store and shoots and kills the clerk and everyone in the store, he will only get 8 years, tops.

So, this encourages young larcenous thugs to not just rob the store, but kill everyone in the store in the process. Then, of course, they blame the gun and not the criminal.

Rich kids get off with less than a slap on the wrist; anyone else gets their arse reamed. And all the while Judges whose behavior in the court room that rises to the level of idiocy is the norm.

Oh, and never for an instant believe, even remotely, that police, judges or lawyers understand the law.

Jury nullifcation anyone? There is debate whether this is legit? Does any country practice this with success? The idea that even if the jury believes they are guilty they can find the defendent innocent nullifying the law they are accused of. Over the basis the government passed a bad/Unconstiutional/Lacked authority/Or the people otherwise doesnt believe it ought to be on the books.

I am firmly of the opinion that it is better a thousand guilty men walk free than a single innocent be found guilty.

We forget that the state has by far the greatest brutality record of any group in history; no matter the country. Remember that we are okay with training state approved killers to defend us. It is, in my opinion, our moral duty to protect those who are accused by the state of anything. It should take the utmost proof to secure a conviction, which is why often such small sentences are imposed. Its also why I am so staunchly against the death penalty.

Some interesting thoughts. But I will point out that this thread hasn't been commented on since early March, we try not to gravedig old threads.

This isn't the worst grave dig I've seen though - so don't worry. I just thought I'd give you a heads up.