Essay on Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is essentially an agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in which the accused pleads guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence or a reduced charge.  It is a recognized procedure in the criminal justice system which aims to reduce the clogging of cases in court.  It is said that aside from the plea bargaining, the criminal justice system, state laws and the US Constitution provides the accused with different legal defenses which he can use to avoid conviction or to relieve him from criminal liability.  These defenses are negative defenses such as the denial of the crime or affirmative defenses such as by admitting the crime but alleging circumstances such as self-defense, insanity, provocation, violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy and even violation of the right against self-incrimination.  Despite the rights granted under the US Constitution in favor of the accused – right to be presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt; right to be tried by a jury; and the right to an impartial judge – the accused often relies on plea bargaining.  As a result, statistics say that majority of the cases now are being disposed by plea bargaining with only ten percent (10%) of the accused getting the benefits of their constitutional rights.        Whether the plea bargaining is advantageous or advantageous will normally depend on the unique and peculiar circumstances of the case and if he is the accused, the prosecution, the victim or the courts.  There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining who benefits and who does not benefit from plea bargaining. 

            For an accused who committed the crime and who thinks that the prosecution has gathered enough evidence against him to ensure his conviction, plea bargaining is a gift which he must take advantage of at the very first instance it was offered to him by the prosecution (p.287).  The reason is that for a person who is indeed guilty of the crime and who thinks that he cannot escape conviction because of overwhelming evidence, admitting to a lesser crime with lesser penalties will be the best scenario for him.  He gets the benefit of immediate disposition of his case since he no longer needs to hire lawyers to defend him in court.  While it is true that existing laws mandate that an accused should be defended by a public attorney in case he does not have a lawyer, the practical reality is that only paid lawyers can competently and adequately defend the accused and that public attorneys do not defend their client’s case to the best of their ability.  Moreover, the accused also gets the benefit of lesser time in prison as it is implicit in the arrangement that if he agrees to a lesser crime charged he shall be convicted to a lesser penalty.  If he behaves properly in prison his sentence may be further reduced for good behavior and he may find himself out of prison. 

            However, for an accused who did not commit the crime and who is innocent for the crime charged, availing of plea bargaining is not the best option for him.  Every person has rights.  It must be stressed that accusation is not synonymous with guilt.  It does not follow that he is guilty for the crime just because a criminal case was filed against him.  He is still entitled to the existing rights under the law such as the presumption of innocence, the right to due process, and the right to be heard in court.  In addition, even if the accused admits to committing the crime, there are other legal and valid defenses under the law which he can use to avoid conviction.  One of these defenses is the self-defense or defense of a relative which are valid defenses.  In these cases, even if a crime has committed the law justifies the action thereby relieving him from criminal liability.  Other defenses include excuse defenses such as insanity which relieves the accused from criminal liability because of lack of intelligence and intent on the pat of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime.  Moreover the US Constitution also provides for countless defenses which the accused may use to avoid conviction.  Among these rights are right against self-incrimination, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to be informed of Miranda Rights, the right against ex post facto law, or the right against double jeopardy.  By agreeing to plea bargaining, the accused in effect is deprived of these rights to which he is entitled (p.286). 

            For the victim or the injured party or the relatives of the victim or the injured party, plea bargaining may be advantageous for them.  They get the benefit of immediate conviction without having to spend so much time, money and effort just so justice can be served.  Risk of losing case after years of trial is also avoided.  Moreover, the immediate disposition of their case helps in giving them closure which gives them the opportunity to finally move on with their lives and forget the crime. 

            For the prosecution, plea bargaining is advantageous for them.  They can the benefit of immediate conviction.  This conviction appears on their resume as a win for them.  If an accused agrees to plea bargaining, the case ends and for the prosecution they have done their job.  Risk of losing a case, if it proceeds to trial, is likewise avoided.  Moreover, disposing those cases where the accused is clearly guilty, gives them the opportunity to concentrate on other cases where issues of facts and issues of law are disputed. 

            For the courts, plea bargaining is definitely advantageous for them.  When an accused agrees to plea bargaining, conviction immediately follows.  The judge or jury does not have to spend time and effort in hearing cases in which the guilt of the accused is apparent.  It also helps in reducing the number of cases already filed in court.  This gives the judges more time to concentrate on other cases which are already pending in their court.  Experience has shown that in other cases which prohibits plea bargaining, the administration of justice suffers as court cases are clogged, trial is lengthened and more accused suffers.

Conclusion

            Plea bargaining is an evil in the criminal justice system but it is a necessary evil.  The system may be loathsome and obnoxious but it has become part of the criminal justice system.  Doing away with it will only cause more problems.  Over-reliance to plea bargaining is also not advisable.  It is suggested that plea bargaining of cases should be closely monitored so that only those cases which the guilt of the accused is clearly apparent should be subject of plea bargaining.   

BUY ESSAY ON PLEA BARGAINING NOW!

Essay on Juvenile Transfers - the Trial and Sentencing of Juveniles as Adults

            There is a universal consensus that juveniles are mentally, physically, and emotionally different from adults.  As such, treatment should be different between an adult criminal offender and a juvenile criminal offender.  This is the reason why juvenile cases are heard by juvenile courts and juveniles are tried and sentenced differently from an adult.  This is also the reason why juveniles who commit crime are called juveniles offenders while adults who commit crime are called criminal offenders.  However, in the past few decades, there has been a trend towards the transfer of jurisdiction from juvenile courts to adult courts – this is known as the juvenile transfer laws. 

            Transfer laws have been implemented in a number of states since three decades ago.  Not surprisingly these acts are being done in response to what the proponents of these transfer laws called as the super-predators and the increasing crime rate among juveniles offenders.  They also argue that juvenile crimes are becoming more violent and serious.  Thus, they proposed that there is a need to transfer juvenile offenders to the jurisdiction of adult criminal courts.  This is confirmed by the National Center for Juvenile Justice which said that in the past years transfer laws are becoming more common, more sweeping and more automatic. 

            The legality and constitutionality of judicial transfers is not being questioned as the state laws currently allow judicial transfers.  Recent Supreme Court cases have also declared that there is nothing unconstitutional about these transfers.  What is being questioned is the wisdom behind these judicial transfers.  This essay seeks to explain the concept of juvenile transfers and its harmful and destructive consequences to the juvenile offenders. 

Consequences of Juvenile Transfers

            The effectiveness of a policy will always be measured depending on its goals.  Policy makers say that juvenile transfers seek to reduce crime rate involving juvenile offenders.  They say that the problem of juvenile offenders stem from the ineffective juvenile justice system.  Because of the leniency of juvenile justice system, according to the proponents of juvenile transfers, society has given birth to a more violent and angry juveniles whom they call super-predators.   The only way to stop these super-predators from further committing crimes and destroying our society is by declaring that the government is serious in controlling crime and imposing upon them stricter punishment.  Thus, the primary goal of juvenile transfer is to deter crimes by serving as a warning to juvenile offenders that in case they commit crime serious punishment awaits them inside jails reserved for adults.  It also hopes that upon release those incarcerated in adult prisons will become fully reformed individuals.         

            Research however has failed to substantiate the theory that juvenile transfer may deter juvenile crimes.  There is also no basis in saying that juvenile transfer can reduce the likelihood of juveniles committing crimes.  According to the National Center for Juvenile Justice, “With respect to the general deterrence effects of these laws—their effectiveness in reducing crime in the general juvenile population, by discouraging the commission of offenses subject to transfer and criminal prosecution—the research has not produced entirely consistent results.” (“Different from Adults: An Updated Analysis of Juvenile Transfer and Blended Sentencing Laws,

With Recommendations for Reform,” 2008, p.8)   

            On the other hand, research has proven that juvenile transfers – transfer of juvenile offenders to the jurisdiction of adult criminal courts and the subsequent imprisonment of juvenile offenders in adult prisons – have counter-deterrent effect.  According to studies, juvenile transfers have the tendency to increase recidivism rate and violent offending.

            There are several reasons why juvenile transfer is unhealthy for a juvenile offender.  First is that the adult criminal courts and prisons are currently overcrowded.  As it is, Court dockets are already clogged resulting in the delay in the hearing of cases.  Case management has also become very difficult.  Adult prisons are also overcrowded, badly maintained and poorly managed.  If juvenile offenders will be added to the already clogged court cases of adult criminal courts and be confined in overcrowded adult prisons, the situation will only get worse not only for the adult offenders but even for the juvenile offenders. 

            Secondly, there is yet no research that will prove that placing juvenile offenders in the same prison as an adult is healthy for the juvenile offender.  If policy makers continue to allow juvenile offenders to be placed in the same confinement as an adult, then it would not come as a surprise if these juvenile offenders will leave the prison with Master’s degree in robbery or murder.  When a juvenile offender stays in the same facilities as an adult offender he does not only have a cell mate but he has a friend, an advisor and in most cases a role model.  This runs contrary to the policy of deterring criminality and deterring recidivism for juvenile offenders.  It bears stressing that despite the legislative policy of placing only violent juvenile offenders in adult courts, the reality is that this is not being strictly implemented.  According to the Department of Justice, 39% of the juveniles in adult prisons were sentenced merely for nonviolent offenses (J Steven Smith, 2002, p.1).  Moreover, the most serious charge for almost 40% of these young offenders was most likely a drug or nonviolent property offense (J Steven Smith, 2002, p.1).

            Thirdly, there is evidence that will prove that placing juvenile offenders in adult prisons only expose them to greater risks than if they are sentenced in detention facilities.  While it is true that there is a scarcity of data on rape, suicide and assault rapes among juvenile offenders in adult prisons, but this can be attributed only to the fact that it is to the best interest of prison officials to under-report statistics on abuses against juvenile offenders in prisons.  In some cases, states lump suicide deaths under the category of “unspecified cause.”  It must however be stressed that these children are exposed to greater harm when they stay inside the prison. 

            According to Michael G. Flaherty, a researcher at the Community Research Forum at the University of Illinois, juveniles are 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide than in juvenile detention centers (“The Risks Juveniles Face When They Are Incarcerated With Adults,” p.1).  The high incident of suicide rate among juvenile offenders in adult prisons only confirm the theory that they are abused more regularly and exposed to more violence inside adult prisons which drive them to desperation.  Incidence of rape against a juvenile offender is also more likely than in adult prison.  In a1989 study conducted to determine how juvenile offenders are being treated in adult prisons reveals that close to 10% reported a sexual attack or rape attempted had been levied against them in adult prisons.  Let us face reality.  If rape is happening against adult offenders, then it is more likely to happen against juvenile offenders who are most likely to be incapable of defending themselves against these the adult criminals. 

Juvenile Transfer to Adult Courts

As stated, juvenile transfers is the current trend among a majority of the states.  Among the legislative measures being used to transfer jurisdiction of juveniles to adult courts are: a) prosecutorial discretion; b) statutory exclusion; c) lowered age limits; d) “once an adult always an adult” policy; e) judicial waiver.

            One of the measures passed as a solution to juvenile crimes is prosecutorial discretion.  This is otherwise known as the direct file transfer since the prosecutors are given the complete authority to determine whether to file a case against a juvenile offender in juvenile courts or directly in criminal courts.  The reason why this is allowed is that original jurisdiction over these cases is held concurrently by both courts making it possible for prosecutors to file in either one of these courts.  One of the criteria used in filing cases in criminal courts is the gravity of the crime.  This means that for a crime of murder committed by a minor it is possible that a prosecutor may choose to file a case in criminal courts. In a study conducted by Bldg. Blocks for Youth Facts Sheet: Transfer of Youth to the Adult Criminal Justice System, it showed that 85% of the Juvenile transfer to adult courts are a result of prosecutorial discretion or automatic waiver while 15% are transferred per judicial waiver (Kelly M. Angell, 2004, p.133). 

            The problem with prosecutorial discretion is that currently few states define the extent of the discretion given to prosecutors.  There is no general principle prosecutors can use as guide in exercising its decision to transfer juvenile cases.  There is also no incentive for choosing the file juvenile cases in juvenile courts or for choosing to exercise this discretion sparingly.  Juvenile defendants are given no opportunity to question this discretion and to test the correctness of transfer decisions.  The principle behind a democracy is that the function of each and every department is checked by another.  No single department or government agency functions independently of another.  Every government agency is accountable for its decision.  The current system on prosecutorial discretion however limits the accountability of prosecutors for its decisions. 

            Another measure used to transfer jurisdiction is statutory exclusion or legislative transfers.  In effect, these laws grant criminal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving juveniles.  Some states automatically grant jurisdiction to criminal courts on offenses committed by juvenile offenders depending on either the age or the nature of the offense charged.  For example, in some states like Illinois, the laws state that a case of drug possession within 100 ft from school will be heard by adult courts regardless of the minority of the accused.  The basis for this transfer is the argument that the right to be tried under juvenile courts is not a constitutional right but a statutory which the legislative has granted and it can also take away.  Thus, in some states, the age limits are lowered so that regardless of the nature of the crime committed, the offender is tried as an adult.  Thus, the adult courts are automatically granted the authority to hear cases involving juvenile offenders if they have reached a certain age limit.  

            According to a 1999 report conducted by the National Criminal Justice Reference Series (NCJRS), statutory exclusion accounts for the largest number of juveniles tried as adults in criminal court (“All States allow juveniles to be tried as adults in criminal court under certain circumstances,” 1999 National Report Series, p.2).  By enacting statutes that exclude certain cases from juvenile court jurisdictions, these cases are automatically referred to the adult criminal courts.  The problem with this type of juvenile transfer is that the law fails to take into account the circumstances behind the commission of the crime by juvenile offenders.  While a number of juvenile offenders intentionally commit crimes, a great majority of these offenders did not intend to commit these crimes.  In fact, most of them only made poor decisions in their life.  Most of them committed the mistake of associating with the wrong group or wrong friends.  If the adult courts take into account various circumstances such as justifications defense, excuse defense, provocation and any other circumstances and reduces or relieves an adult accused from criminal liability on the basis of these circumstances then these peculiar circumstances should also be taken into account in determining whether juveniles should be tried as an adult or not.  Thus, neglecting to take into account the peculiar circumstances of the commission of the crime by these classes of juvenile offenders constitutes a serious injustice to them.  This is supported by David W. Roush (1997) who said that “An offense-based system for juveniles denies the individual characteristics of each child and overgeneralizes by enforcing a "one-size-fits-all" strategy. It also compounds the empirically demonstrated racial bias already present in our system” (p.1)    

            In judicial waiver, the state or the prosecution files a motion before the juvenile court to transfer jurisdiction from juvenile courts to criminal court.  A case originates in juvenile courts which may be transferred to adult courts upon approval of the judge.  It is the judge who determines whether the transfer should be effected based on the judge’s sole discretion, or because certain well-defined criteria has been met or upon a probable cause determination for an offense for which the state has deemed that the waiver is appropriate.  Statistics shows that for three decades the number of cases transferred to adult courts by judicial waiver has fluctuated.  Between 1971 to 1981, national juvenile transfers by judicial waiver has increased from less than 1% to 5% but by 1985 has declined to 1.4% in total cases.  (Kelly M. Angell, 2002, p. 132) 

 

Constitutionality of Juvenile Transfer

            There are many apprehensions about the increasing number of juvenile offenders being prosecuted as an adult in criminal courts and being placed in the same confinement as adults  Among the arguments raised are that it fails to address the special needs of the minors who at that tender age needs the protection and help of the society.  Also, it argued that transferring jurisdiction to criminal courts does not equip the minors of any learning necessary to reenter the communities.  Another argument is that the transfer fails to take into account the notion that violence is a learned behavior.  It must be stressed that most of the time these juvenile offenders were also victims of abuse or neglect. 

            Though the wisdom of the practice of transferring juvenile courts to criminal court is being questioned, there is no question about the constitutionality of these transfers.  Courts of different states have upheld the constitutionality of these transfers.  In the case of State v. Green

No. COA95-936, the North Caroline Court of Appeals recognized constitutionality of the transfer of juvenile cases of criminal courts.  It ruled that the decision to transfer a juvenile's case to criminal court lies solely within the discretion of the district court judge and, in making this decision, district court judges need only state the reasons for the transfer and need not make findings of fact to support the conclusion that the needs of the juvenile or the best interests of the State would be served by the transfer.

            In the case entitled In Re : J.L.W., No. COA99-283, the court likewise recognized the constitutionality of juvenile transfers.  It ruled that no constitutional right is violated so long as the judge considers that that the transfer meets the needs of the juvenile or serves the best interest of the State.  However, the juvenile court’s transfer order to a criminal court was vacated in this case and remanded to the juvenile court since the juvenile court's transfer order does not reflect that consideration was given to the needs of the juvenile, to his rehabilitative potential, and to the family support he receives.

Recommendation

            There are juvenile offenders who because of the severity and gravity of their crime need to be punished.  There are also many cases of juvenile crimes where the juvenile offenders deserve the leniency of treatment.  In these cases, placing them in the same penal facilities as an adult will only do more harm than good.  As such it is not being suggested that juvenile transfer laws be eliminated. Rather, juvenile transfer laws should be sparingly used and utilized only in extreme cases of violence committed by juvenile offenders.  Thus, it is suggested that together with the new laws being adopted transferring jurisdiction of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts, there should also be fail-safe mechanisms which will allow criminal courts to re-transfer or return transferred cases back to juvenile courts.  In this way, judges in adult criminal courts can have the option to reject cases back to juvenile courts if based on peculiar circumstances of the case hearing the case in adult courts will not be beneficial for the welfare of the juvenile offender.

 

Conclusion

            Over one century ago, the juvenile justice system was created.  It was created as a result of the findings that juvenile offenders cannot be placed in the same penal facilities as an adult.  They also realized that juvenile offenders cannot be reformed inside adult prisons but they end up only being hardened criminals who are more likely to commit another crime upon their release.  The realization then was that juvenile offenders and adult criminals cannot be placed in one facilities because it was self-destructive and self-defeating. 

            Now, it seems that nothing has been learned from the experiences of our forefathers.  We go back 100 years before and commit the same mistakes they did.  As if we learned nothing from their mistakes.  Two matters have been cleared: First, there is no basis in saying that transferring jurisdiction of juvenile offenders in adult courts and punishing them as adults will promote the objective of deterring crime and preventing recidivism; Second, there is basis in saying that juvenile transfer is destructive to the juvenile offenders. 

BUY ESSAY ON JUVENILE TRANSFER NOW!

Essay on Legal System

Stare Decisis or Judicial precedent refers to a principle which literally means “let the decision stand.”  Under the principle of stare decisis judges are to a certain extent obligated to follow the precedent.  If a judge has decided a case and declared a particular rule then it becomes his duty when a similar case comes up to decide the case according to the same rule he promulgated in the first case.   If on the other hand, a higher court has decided a similar case with similar issues of law, then the lower courts are bound by the precedent of a case.  Thus, when courts decide a case they should take into consideration whether there is a similar case with similar issues and whether the questions of law have already been decided by a higher court. The purpose behind this principle is to ensure consistency in the decisions of the Supreme Court.  The concept of stare decisis is important because it gives stability to the judicial system of our country.  The people will know what rule is applicable if ever there is a similar case. 

            However, the principle is not absolute.  The Supreme Court as the highest federal court has, in many instances, found it necessary to overturn cases. 

In the case of Wilson v. Layne, the Supreme Court in determining whether the police officers may invoke their qualified immunity to escape their liability for damages referred to the doctrine enunciated in Anderson v. Creighton (483 US 735).  In the Anderson case, the Supreme Court said that a government official performing discretionary function may be entitled to qualified immunity provided the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”  It added that it depends on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were `clearly established' at the time it was taken." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 639 (1987).  Following the principles enunciated in the Anderson case, the Supreme Court in this case ruled that the right of the petitioners was not clearly established.  As such, the police officers may invoke qualified immunity.

2.  A trial is different from an appeal.  The trial is the first instance where a court of competent jurisdiction learns about the case.  This is the initial stage of the dispute where the court studies the facts of the case, the issues presented by the parties and the pieces of evidence.  It is also the stage where the court is informed of the arguments of the opposing parties.  Since the trial is considered as the beginning of an appeal, it plays an important role in the judicial process. (May L. Cain, 2007, p.1)  Because everything that happens during the trial stage is transcribed including the objections of the opposing parties, the lawyers of both parties must pay close attention to the details of the case as everything that is not objected to during the trial can, as a rule, no longer be raised during the appeal.  Thus, lawyers must know when to object during the trial since these objections can later on be the subject of an appeal by the losing party.  

            An appeal is different from a trial.  A losing party during the trial stage or even the winning party if he is not satisfied with the decision during the trial stage may file an appeal with the appellate court.  An appeal is the second chance of the losing party or the winning party to be heard and convince the court that he is entitled to the relief prayed for.  It must however be emphasized that no person has the right to an appeal.  An appeal will be taken due course by the courts only when it is filed in accordance with the rules of court in filing an appeal and it is filed on time.  It is different from the trial stage since at this stage there is no longer any presentation of evidence.  As a rule, only the evidence that has been raised during the trial stage may be presented during the appeal. 

            The appeal is important in the judicial process because it gives the parties who feel that the decision was not handed down in accordance with the law or who feel that the judge committed an abuse of discretion in deciding a case, a second opportunity to be heard.  It gives also the appellate court an opportunity to review the case decided by a lower court and determine if the case was decided in accordance with law or if a grave abuse of discretion was committed. 

3.         As a result of the federal system of government, where both the federal and state governments have powers and have their own system of laws, we also have two different court systems which interpret and apply the laws.  These court systems have their own jurisdiction in hearing and deciding cases.  This makes the United States’ judicial system very unique because it is made up of two distinct and independent court systems which are the federal court system and the state court system.  At the top of this court structure is the United States Supreme Court which is considered as the final arbiter of all legal controversies. The US Supreme Court plays a very crucial role in every democratic society.  It is considered as the last place of refuge for every American citizen and non-citizens as well.

            One disadvantage is that litigants may be confused in determining the jurisdiction for filing their complaints.  There are cases which are exclusively cognizable by state courts and there are cases which are exclusively cognizable by federal courts.  Filing the case in the wrong court may result in its dismissal.  Thus the litigants must know where to file their case

            On the other hand, the beauty of the complex judicial system is that there are also cases which are cognizable by either the state courts or the federal courts.  In these situations where either the state or federal court has jurisdiction over the case the litigants are given the option to choose which court, the federal court and state court, they intend to file their case. 

4.         The Criminal Procedure recognizes that there are always three sides in every legal controversy.  The first side pertains to the truth according to the injured party where he attempts to prove that he speaks only the truth.   The second side is the truth according to the accused where he attempts to establish his innocence.  The third will be the absolute truth which is theoretically the same as that of the findings of the court after both sides have been heard. 

            The Adversarial System is the method used in the United States to arrive at the real truth.  The adversarial system offers the greater opportunity for the litigants to establish their own case without undue interference by any other party.  If the prosecution wins that is because they were able to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence and that they were able to adduce proof that the accused is indeed guilty of the crime charged.  On the other hand, if the case against the defendant is dismissed then that is because either the accused is innocent of the crime charged or that the prosecution’s evidence was weak and that they were not able to prove rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence.  Either way, the determination of truth is mainly in the hands of the disputing parties. 

            In the adversarial system, the theory is that no party has the upper hand.  This means that though the injured party has the entire machinery of the state on his hand to help him in the prosecution of the accused, the accused however has the constitutional presumption of innocence.  In the beginning, he does not really have to do anything because of this presumption since the burden of proof is upon the prosecution.  It is only when in the course of the trial, the prosecution has successfully overcome this constitutional presumption that the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.  When this happens he must adduce evidence to prove his claim so that the burden of proof will once against shift to the prosecution.   

            The disadvantage however is that in adversarial system, the adversarial system has been degraded because the truth is no longer the object of search in every case.  Instead, winning is the sole purpose of the trial.  The victor nowadays is not the person who is telling the truth before the court rather the victor is the one who can manipulate the facts and distort the truth better than the other.  The result is that most criminals end in the street freed from the charges filed against them.  The innocent or the ones who do not have the money to pay for expensive lawyers are the ones staying behind bars. 

            Another disadvantage is that the parties have too much control over the proceedings in an adversarial system.  They control the evidence they need to present and the witnesses to testify during trial.  In the past this has been abused by the litigants to the point that they are the ones who now control the length of the proceedings.  What happens is that the lawyers of litigants after realizing that they have no case at all or their client is indeed guilty of the crime charge may decide “to delay and prolong the criminal proceedings by disputing every point rather than on the real issues.” (Martin 2)  For a destitute litigant who does not have enough resources to compete with the wealthy opponent, he definitely will eventually give up.  He will lose interest in the case.

BUY ESSAY ON LEGAL SYSTEM NOW!

Cameras in Courtrooms in England and Wales are allowed

As a matter of public policy, trials are open to spectators.  In view of the principles of transparency in the criminal justice system, the public which is represented by the mass media can be present during trials as spectators.

In general, use of cameras during trial to record what is happening in the courtroom is forbidden.  In fact, almost all federal trial courts forbid cameras. During the trial of Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh the news cameras were barred.  Access through a closed-circuit system was granted only to the relatives of the bombing after a special law was passed by Congress.  Recently, however, a number of courts have allowed to a certain extend media coverage of trials.  These are however subject to strict rules which must be observed by the mass media.

England and Wales is among the few countries in the world that does not allow use of camera inside courtroom.  Surprisingly, recently, in a news article entitled England, Wales to allow cameras in court for the first time a law was passed in England and Wales allowing for the first time the use of television cameras in courts where judges can be filmed delivering summaries.  It should be stressed that victims, witnesses, defendants or juries will not be filmed.  

The new law was passed to improve the public’s understanding of the criminal justice system and to improve transparency in the administration of justice.

Technology as aid in the criminal justice system is now being increasingly used in court.  While are benefits the increasing use of technology also presents challenges in the administration of criminal justice system.  For more information about the use of technology and challenges in the administration of criminal justice system visit our website at www.smartessaywriters.com.

BUY ESSAY ON CAMERAS IN COURTROOM IN ENGLAND AND WALES NOW!
Image: Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net