Sample Paper on Barriers and Challenges of the Criminal Justice System

Barriers and Challenges of the Criminal Justice System

The size of the jury is one of the issues in this case, because how justice is administered is now different. In the recent times, judges in the US claim that a 6-person jury is substandard compared to the 12 person, arguing that the superior one will attain a precise verdict. This in fact is wrong because it assumes that each member of the jury makes an independent judgment, and in the end makes a poor verdict. According to Helland et al (2008, p.259) in a recent study, the number of jurors in a case does not affect the type of errors being committed, thus the judge should be the only decision maker. It is also argued that reducing the size of the jury diorites public confidence that reflect a fair cross section in their communities (Helland et al, 2008, p.260). He argued that the population is normally compromised of a 10% minority, and a 12-person jury will have a 72% chance of seating in at least in the minority, giving a fair chance (Hastie et al, 2002, p.6).

Existence of a federal crime influence within our system is a worry when it is related to capital punishment (Connor, 2010, p.210). Existence of double jurisdiction over a variety of capital crimes introduces another chance for uncertainty in the scheme. Other than that, it creates potential for unfairness to individual defendants, and there being a death penalty, it is hard for state policy makers, from the drafting session to the legislation process. It in fact diminishes the capacity of the state to realize their preference in relation to their penalty systems and the presence of death sentences (Connor, 2010, p.210).

An experiment is performed to investigate whether the number of the jury matters. There are two forms or errors. Type 1 is being convicting an innocent defender and type 2 being acquitting a guilty defendant (Koch et al, 2000, p.379). This is to show that most jurors do not vote strategically and vote according to their own private information acquired. Results indicate that the jurors receive signals of the defenders guilt or innocence independently and then make a decision as a whole. The number of jurors therefore listening to a case does not affect the probability of committing crime type 1 or type 2 (Koch et al, 2000, p. 380).

Since there are very high penalties for crimes, there are ways to reduce cases of imprisonment. Commissions have been set up to develop data that would allow judges to select a low-level non-violent offender without increasing the risk of safety for the public (Demleitner, 2005, p. 1271). The information is used to identify the notorious and dangerous sex crooks, or crime reprobates. This has demonstrated to be cost resourceful. Reentry programs, drug rehabilitation treatments have also been set up to help those from prison not to get back there. This is because the inmates do not readjust to the community, thus repeat the same crimes. In addition, there should be an empathetic discharge of prisoners facing harsh conditions and cause no hazard to the community. By persecuting the most serious of the offenses and detecting the places where most of these crimes occur, it would help curb crime. The higher rates of poverty may weaken most of the people and tempt them to crimes but the criminal justice system intensifies the problem rather than ease it (Connor, 2010, p 201

References

Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (2002). Inside the jury. Union, N.J: Lawbook Exchange.

Helland, E., & Raviv, Y. (2008). The optimal jury size when jury deliberation follows a random walk. Public Choice, 134(3-4), 255-262. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9222-5

Connor, E. M. (2010). The Undermining Influences of the Federal Death Penalty on Capital Policymaking and Criminal Justice Administration in the States. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(1), 149-211. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/347839049?accountid=1611

Demleitner, N. V. (2005). Is There a Future For Leniency In The U.S. Criminal Justice System? Michigan Law Review, 103(6), 1231-1272. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201161349?accountid=1611

Koch, T., & Ridgley, M. (2000). The condorcet’s jury theorem in a bioethical context: The dynamics of group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(5), 379-392. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223826666?accountid=1611

The post Sample Paper on Barriers and Challenges of the Criminal Justice System appeared first on Essay Homework Writing Help.