Crime and Punishment in UK - Essay Example

Crime and Punishment in UK The criminal Justice act 2003 was enacted to reduce the crime by deterrence and by taking the preventive steps like supervising in the licence period and taking into custody when there is a need. The minimum time prescribed for a sentence in murder cases and the permission for a trial in the absence of a Jury, the compulsion on the persons called for Jury duties, the custodial periods, the steps taken for reducing re-offenders, custody plus, the new discretionary powers for the Jury, the role probation agencies in reforming the convicts, the permission for the retrial are some of the new clauses included in the law and generally after three years of enacting the law, there is a need to analyse the effect of it and to which extent it was showing its extra effect than the previous laws. In the backdrop of increased sentences in the last ten years and decrease of the fines and community punishments the deterrence attained by implementing the law is to be discussed. First of all there should be a reason for passing a sentence or giving punishment which reduces crime or offer deterrence. The public protection should also be considered and it was considered in the act. Some Judges or magistrates feel that the act gives a practical tool for improving their decision making capacity.1 A bench which is to present a report does not like to observe the details of the punishment given. But the effort to establish rapport between bench and probation by the act is capable of showing the real positive effect. The bench now is provided with a chance to know the decisions taken at the time of probation. But the process is too complex, but is valuable. Crime and punishment in UK The judges decide the punishments in individual cases. This can be termed as independence of Judiciary. But the independence is not the one that makes an escape from the responsibilities. The sentencers may think at the time of the sentence that the punishment given may help in reducing the crime and offer deterrence. But it is not the whole thing which can reduce and deter crime incidence. There should be provision in the law to make all the agencies of the Justice system work in coordination to bring reform in the convicts and attaining the reducing rate of crime. If the Judges think that just judicial independence is the panacea, then the system will suffer and the purpose is not served. How ever the provision of liaison between the judiciary and the probation agencies is capable of bringing the change in the offenders who commit crime and serve sentences from less than 1 year to more than 2 years. The reduction of crime and deterrence depends upon the factor that up to which extent the convict was reformed. Generally the rate of repeating crime in the persons convicted in murder cases will be very less (not nil) as a person convicted for more than 10 years, though not reformed, may loose the capacity of committing the murder. It may not be true in all the cases here it was mentioned to make a point that the reformation is more necessary in the case of the persons sentenced for the period of months to 2 to 4 years. The reformation brought out in these persons can be a tool in hand for the system to reduce the crime incidence and to attain the required deterrence. The Judiciary/probation liaison was provided in the act for this reformation, but the extent of its implementation will result in the range of reformation. But it can be known that the sentencing by the Judges and magistrates in all the levels of the courts increased and the community punishments and fines were decreased,1 telling the fact that the liaison was not working up to the mark or it may take some more time to show its effect. Though the courts of England and Wales have more probability of imposing penalties other than custodies, in the last decade the custodial sentences increased. The community sentences were also resulted in the community punishments.2 In the last ten years the custodial sentences increased telling us that there is no liaison between Judiciary and the probationary agencies. The provision for that thing in CJA 2003 should be implemented at will to attain the reduction of crime. After completion of 3 years of slow implementation of the law (some clauses were not being implemented) did not bring the much anticipated change. After the enacting of the law also, the judiciary is taking more punitive approach towards the offenders. It is clear that the anticipated liaison between judiciary and the probation agencies (prisons) was not established till now and the system deserves it for the reduction of crime by reforming the offenders and convicts. After discussing about the reduction and deterrence now comes the point that how fair were the some clauses introduced in the act. One such provision is accepting hearsay evidence. This can be termed as case sensitive. In some cases the hearsay evidence can be termed as fair and in some other cases it may be termed as unfair. Let us consider a case in which the person was accused for murdering for drugs. There was evidence for it and the accused intimidated them. When the witnesses disappear on the day of giving evidence the defendant argues that they have some selfish motives in giving evidence against him. It is clear that he was responsible for the disappearance of the witnesses but the hearsay evidence will not permit us to take into account the intentions of the disappeared witnesses. This case of admitting or rejecting the hearsay evidence will not satisfy the conditions laid down by article 6. According to it the evidence should be given in public hearing and the defendant must only have chance of cross examining him in that hearing.1 Accepting of hearsay evidence is against the spirit of the article 6 and can be considered as unfair practice if it was to be practised. But the hearsay provisions under CJA 2003 were brought into practice after 2005 and this unfair practice was being continued. When we discuss what the Government is trying to implement the change in police powers comes to the fore. The changes in bail conditions, de arrest, restricting the re arresting, granting bail are some of the issues of contention. The detention period mentioned for the persons involved in the terrorist actions tells us what the government is trying to implement. It is bringing some changes in the police powers which are liberalised in the case of ordinary crimes and were reinforced in the case of serious crimes like terrorist actions. The permissible police custody for the persons arrested in terrorist actions was increased form 7 to 14 days which gives more chance to police to deal with the accused.2 As the terrorist actions were not only anti social but also antinational the Government is trying to implement more police powers regarding that case. In case of terrorist offences the Government is trying to make the police department's work simpler by making even the previous compulsory draft of home secretary on the accused of terrorist actions. Now according to CJA 2003 the home secretary instead of wasting time in drafting can consult the police authorities and can decide on the future course of action. This saves time, energy and patience of the police officers dealing with terrorist offences. This change was brought in aftermath of 2001 with an intention to deal with the terrorists in more hard line way. Apart from all the above contexts the thing which plays a major role in dealing with reforming and reducing re-offending thereby decreasing crime rate is the reformation that can be done in the case of accused who can be sentenced for 12 months or less than it. In these cases if court feels that it is reasonable can order the suspension of the sentence for two years and impose on the offender some conditions to follow in the suspension, in which the violation brings him to the original sentence. According to the S.183 of CJA 2003 court can impose custodial days of 14 to 90 days and then a period of licence.1 The effect of this on reducing crime and re-offending must be examined. is to be examined after analysing the consequences of those type of sentences. The sentences imposing imprisonment for more than 1 year to four years increased to 30percent in males and 17 percent in females from 18 percent in males and 6 percent in females. This increase can be attributed to the fact of the provision in CJA 2003 that these prisoners can be released after half of the period of their sentence and then kept on licence period. Conditions were imposed on them in the licence period and violation of will bring them back to the prison.2 This provision may further result in more sentences by the judges thus by reducing the community sentences and community punishments which are supposed to be more effective in reducing re-offending. There is the provision in the act to deal with the accused aged less than 21 years of age. The accused aged 17or less than that are tried at youth justice and the accused of age 18 to 21 are termed as young adults1 and tried in adults courts. In case of accused of age less than 17 their parents are also called for the trial and they were asked to take control of the situation of the child in case of imposing a licence period instead of sentence. The act also addresses the social aspect of the society. Instead of leaving everything regarding to the reforming to society to judiciary/probation liaison it tried to implement some social responsibilities by punishments. It was estimated that more than 10 lacs of people have poor education and skills.2 This may result in increasing of crime which pays for them more than working. Statistical evidence to this is that two thirds of those given custodial sentence were being served a sentence less than 12 months.3. To make the system and the reform effective 'custody plus' sentences are put into action for a maximum of thirteen weeks which is followed by a 6months statutory monitoring. In this period the agencies try to develop the skills and literacy of the offender and try to deviate him from committing crime again and again. The paper published by Government named as 'reducing crime - Changing Lives' reveals that 90% of convicts have mental and physical health and misuse problems. The fact that employment reduces the incidence of crime the agencies should try to divert the offender from crime to employment. If employment is easier than crime, naturally the criminal prefers employment and accommodation. There is a provision of examining the increase of the employment of ex convicts and try to bring them into the focus when they turn as models for other ex convicts. For this the agencies should concentrate on rehabilitation needs of prisoners serving less than 1 year sentence. The innovative project which involves the time testing of reforming models which impart education and skills in custodial period is a humanistic face of the CJA 2003. The targets that were set by the act to the agencies were: 1. Increasing employment for the offenders. 2. To estimate various strategies of pre and post release literacy and education programmes. 3. To build contacts with employers and encourage them to promote agreements which encourage the recruiting of ex convicts and arranging employment based support for them and helping them in retaining it. 4. To analyse and record the needs of the persons undergoing sentence regarding the learning, and taking training in various skills. 5. Showing concern about the health issues of women, and older convicts. 6. Making the things which mould the Government's custody plus sentence as role model in reforming the criminals. This reforming system covers about 25% of the area which contain a minimum of 10% of the people having a chance of committing crime. The principle that there will be no crime if it does not pay is followed in letter and spirit in the CJA 2003 but the implementation in some areas like liaison between judiciaryand probation is at the minimum level. As long as the Judiciary thinks that the liaison process with probation is waste of time and a blow to its independence, the reform is not possible from its side. References: The referencing was done in the following format: Name, date/year, title, publisher, edition information if available, type of media, date retrieved, web site address. 1. UK Government, 18Dec 2003, Criminal Justice Act 2003, opsi.gov.uk, , electronic, 14-08-06, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm 2. Media Wiki, 2006, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Wikipedia free encyclopaedia, , electronic, 14-08-06, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_Act_2003 3. Nicholas Moss JP, 16Jan 2006, Criminal Justice Act 2003 - mission accomplished Speech for Noms Regional Sentencers' Conference, Ickworth House, Bury St Edmunds, Judiciary of England and Wales, , electronic, 14-08-06, http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/speeches/2006/sp160106.htm 4. Brian Cox, Dec 2003, National probation service briefing, National probation service for England and Wales, issue 16, electronic, 14-08-06, http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/NPD_Briefing_16.pdf 5. Rod Morgan, Dec 2003, Rebalancing Penal Policy: using the Probation and Prison Services more cost-effectively, , KCCJS, annual lecture, electronic, 14-08-06, http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/ccjs//events/rod.doc 6. Andrew Ashworth, 2006, Sentencing and criminal Justice, Cambridge, 4th edition, 15-08-06, http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.aspisbn=0511133251&ss=exc 7. Hannibal & Mount ford, Hearsay Evidence update, LPC Handbook on Criminal Litigation, electronic, 15-08-06, http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/orc_demo/01student/updates/update_ch25.pdf 8. Blackstone, 2006, Guide to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Oxford University Press, electronic, 15-08-06, http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/ci=9780199267255 9. Equal team, 2006, Exodus, Equal common database, , electronic, 15-08-06, https://equal.cec.eu.int/equal/jsp/dpComplete.jspcip=UKgb&national=138 . Read More