Last Name 1

Name:

Prof Name:

Course Name:

Date:

Criminal justice

The term "criminal justice system" is used in the United States to refer to three

government entities: police, courts, and correctional facilities. The fourth criminal justice

component is commonly referred to as lawmaking; the criminal justice system's actions are

derived from law (Fuller, 2005). When people point fingers at the reasons why criminal justice

can be unfair at times, part of the blame is placed on criminal law.

Criminal law aids society in defining what activities are illegal and punishing those who break

the law to the utmost extent possible. The criminal justice system in England and Wales, like that

of other governments, was established to bring order and a systematic framework to crime and

punishment; nevertheless, public trust in the criminal justice system has recently waned.

Fairness, efficacy, and equality should be the goal of any revisions to the criminal justice system.

This paper depicts in details the challenges affecting the criminal justice system of these two

governments as well as the merits the system has to its citizens.

Is the current criminal justice system fair and effective? Is it possible for the

people to trust the system to make the appropriate judgment in a court of law? The criminal

justice system must be colorblind, nondiscriminatory, and provide equal treatment to all

members of society in order to be effective. Age, color, income, education, or social standing

should not be considered in the criminal justice system. “Equality should have effective

adaptation in order to suit changing values and attitudes of society and individuals,” says the
 Last Name 2

author (Karmen, 2009). The existing criminal justice system has a problem with rapid trials and

court delays; the system takes much too long to close and conclude cases; these cases should be

dealt with while the information is still fresh and new. Delaying cases also puts the victim under

stress; they must live in fear every day, knowing that the defendant is out on bail and roaming

the same streets as them. This might induce mental distress and make it difficult for the victim to

testify about the real crime if they have been subjected to long-term emotional and psychological

stress.

The expense of seeking assistance from the criminal court system should be reevaluated.

It is only reasonable that the cost of hiring a lawyer for any criminal justice reason be affordable.

The system is designed to be prohibitively expensive, and legal aid is provided to individuals

who cannot afford to hire their own legal counsel. However, because all persons are reviewed to

see if they qualify for free legal assistance, there are some people who fall into the grey area of

receiving free legal aid. “People must pass a test establishing their assets or amount of income, as

well as a merit test where the matter is serious enough with a chance of winning” to qualify for

legal aid (Fuller, 2005). The criminal justice system must be equitable in the sense that everyone

should have access to legal counsel.

“The current criminal justice system's strength is derived from the manner it

combines both remedial and procedural justice” (Essays, UK. 2013). Everyone has the right to a

fast and fair trial under the criminal justice system. According to the court's procedures, every

defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court of law. The procedure allows the

defendant to stand trial in front of a jury of peers who have no prior knowledge of the alleged

crime. The jury of peers is told to make a verdict of guilt or innocence only on the basis of facts,

with no emotional attachments or rash choices. “Moreover, in the courtroom, judgment is

 Last Name 3

rendered based on the facts or evidence gathered, not on the whims of public opinion or

emotions in the courtroom” (Kappeler, & Potter, 2004). By the time a trial occurs, the victim of

witnesses may have lost crucial knowledge that could turn the case against them.

The criminal justice system allows a person accused of a crime to post bail in

order to remain free before the trial begins; bail eligibility is evaluated and set by a court judge.

However, it appears that the problem of bail vs. incarceration has harmed public trust in the

system as well. The public believes that anyone accused of such horrible acts should be held in

custody until their trial date, and that an alleged monster should not be allowed to stroll the same

streets as them at night. Citizens are concerned that the system allows accused people to return to

the streets only to retaliate and exact revenge on the victims.

If a judge or jury finds a defendant guilty of the charged offense, a number of

variables are evaluated to decide the severity of the penalty. The nature of the offense, the

defendant's criminal history, whether or not the defendant exhibits symptoms of remorse for the

crime, and the defendant's socioeconomic conditions are all factors. When a judge decides on a

sentence in a court of law, all of these elements are considered. Following a guilty verdict, the

defendant may be sentenced to probation, community service, or jail. “Research demonstrates

that over the last few years, actions such as increased incarceration, high average sentences, and

more executions have weakened the procedures that make the criminal justice system fair”

(Essays, UK., 2013). If the defense believes they were not given a fair trial, they can file an

appeal to have the case retried.

 Last Name 4

Wrongful convictions are a distinct feature of the criminal justice system that

requires further definition; this has become a flaw in the current system. In recent years, there

have been numerous reversed instances in which DNA evidence has freed many persons who

were wrongfully convicted. Investigations must be more thorough, and trials must go quickly but

not so quickly that all evidence and facts are lost. According to Roberts (2007), faith in the

criminal justice system is often lower than confidence in other public institutions because the

criminal justice system must balance the competing interests of a broader range of stakeholders

(for example, victuals).

The current criminal justice system is unable to be both fair and effective, and

public trust must be restored. The persons who make and enforce laws at the state and federal

levels are typically white, male, and older. Currently, the police that enforce criminal legislation

do so based on gender, color, social rank, and socioeconomics. How can the criminal justice

system be fair if it starts with the enforcement of criminal law by police and other law

enforcement officers? The criminal justice system requires impartial law enforcement officers

who promote equality. “The truth is that even if every member of the judicial system was fair,

just, equitable, unbiased, impartial, objective, and dispassionate, the criminal justice system

would still be corrupt.

Rational choice theory, often known as choice or decision theory, proposes that criminals

engage in rational reasoning before committing a crime. Criminals will commit a crime because

it serves the criminal's interests. To put it another way, criminals commit crimes because they

profit from them. The rational choice hypothesis assumes that criminals' constrained choices lead

them to act and commit a crime since that is the only option available to them. Criminals would
 Last Name 5

not commit a crime if there were alternative, more lucrative options available. It is supposed that

criminals, like everyone else, think reasonably

In order for the public to rebuild trust in the current criminal justice system,

changes must be done. “An emphasis on strengthening the service component in criminal justice

is indicated,” Smith (Wales, 2007) writes. By addressing local issues and showcasing triumphs,

criminal justice system activity should aim to enhance community engagement. Should a single

theory be used to explain crime or deviance, or should a combination of theories be utilized

instead? These are challenging problems to address, and there is no consensus among

criminologists. A wide range of theoretical ideas have been provided in Criminological Theories.

While these viewpoints differ, they all attempt to explain the crime phenomena in some way.

It could be best to let all of these theories "fight it out" until only one viewpoint remains.

However, there is another option. Theoretical integration is the process of combining two or

more contradictory hypotheses to create a new theory that encompasses a broader picture of

crime. This integration can take the form of a proposition or a concept. It's also possible to

employ conceptual absorption to mix parts from other ideas. These strategies have the advantage

of allowing the best features of several theories to be combined. It shows how theories that were

originally considered competitive might improve and become more inclusive than previously

assumed. The final chapter is still being written, and the benefits of theory competition vs.

theoretical integration are still being debated.

 Last Name 6

References

T. J. Bernard, G. B. Vold, J. B. Snipes, and A. L. Gerould (2010). Theoretical Criminology by

Vold (6th ed., p. 72). Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

H. Bianchi, H. Bianchi, H. Bianchi, H (1994). To A New System of Crime Control, Justice As

Sanctuary (p.72) Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

K. W. Clarkson, R. L. Miller, G. A. Jentz, and F. B. Cross (1995). West's Business Law is a book

About business law (6 ed. ed., p. 165). West Publishing Co., Minneapolis/St. Paul,

Minnesota

John Heinz and Peter Manikas (1992). “In a Local Criminal Justice System, Elite Networks.” (P.

831–861) in Law and Society Review 26.