Introduction
A miscarriage of justice can have devastating consequences for a person. People who committed crimes must need to be arrested, but some people are not involve in the crimes and those people are so-called innocence. For the people who are charged as criminals, they will suffer from a punishment which is imprisonment or the imposition of fine. If the crimes are defined as serious, the punishments may execute both to the criminals. According to these situations, it is difficult to imagine that the innocence may need to suffer the punishment without doing anything.
Referring to the statement ‘It is better that ten guilty people escape than that one innocent suffers’ (Walker, 2002), it concerns to the society at a serious level. …show more content…
Humans are intelligent animals, they may think they can calculate and handle all the things around them. For example, there is a person who is a perfectionist, the person may predispose the outcome of the tasks are ideally perfect, but the results are finally different from what the person thinks as expected. This circumstance can be explained as ‘miscarriage’.
When being in trials, the judge must sentence beyond the case whether the defendant is acquitted or punished. When the crime is serious, the punishment will be more serious. The judge should treat the case accurately and justly, however after sentenced the defendant is a criminal, but the fact that the defendant is innocent. Accordingly, the judge produces a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, ‘miscarriage’ in criminal justice system is represented a failure to obtain the desired end outcome of 'justice' (Walker & Starmer, 1999).
Definition of …show more content…
The crime control model assures that a civilized society can guard all of its citizens against victimization by criminals. Public and political discourses on miscarriages of justice are extremely polarised (Naughton, 2012). On the one side, the people who are committed to due process present the apprehension about the possible wrongful conviction of the factually innocent. On the opposite side, the people who are committed to crime control present the apprehension about the need to confirm that each one guilty offenders secure their ‘just
A miscarriage of justice can have devastating consequences for a person. People who committed crimes must need to be arrested, but some people are not involve in the crimes and those people are so-called innocence. For the people who are charged as criminals, they will suffer from a punishment which is imprisonment or the imposition of fine. If the crimes are defined as serious, the punishments may execute both to the criminals. According to these situations, it is difficult to imagine that the innocence may need to suffer the punishment without doing anything.
Referring to the statement ‘It is better that ten guilty people escape than that one innocent suffers’ (Walker, 2002), it concerns to the society at a serious level. …show more content…
Humans are intelligent animals, they may think they can calculate and handle all the things around them. For example, there is a person who is a perfectionist, the person may predispose the outcome of the tasks are ideally perfect, but the results are finally different from what the person thinks as expected. This circumstance can be explained as ‘miscarriage’.
When being in trials, the judge must sentence beyond the case whether the defendant is acquitted or punished. When the crime is serious, the punishment will be more serious. The judge should treat the case accurately and justly, however after sentenced the defendant is a criminal, but the fact that the defendant is innocent. Accordingly, the judge produces a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, ‘miscarriage’ in criminal justice system is represented a failure to obtain the desired end outcome of 'justice' (Walker & Starmer, 1999).
Definition of …show more content…
The crime control model assures that a civilized society can guard all of its citizens against victimization by criminals. Public and political discourses on miscarriages of justice are extremely polarised (Naughton, 2012). On the one side, the people who are committed to due process present the apprehension about the possible wrongful conviction of the factually innocent. On the opposite side, the people who are committed to crime control present the apprehension about the need to confirm that each one guilty offenders secure their ‘just