Justice and Fairness in Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice

The role of a judge includes interpretation and enforcement of the law. The judiciary is responsible for upholding and applying laws as made by the legislature. Such laws require interpretation and application by the judicial rules to diverse cases. The concept is inclusive of guidelines that promote appropriate sentencing (Gibson & Cavadino, 2008). Where the jury finds defendants guilty, the judges decide on appropriate sentencing. Magistrates find defendants guilty and issue sentences or refer to higher Courts for sentencing. Such is normally the case where the offences are too serious for the sentencing powers. The sentencing criterion is influenced by various factors such as the circumstances of each case and impact of the crime on the victims. Other components include relevant law that guides Court of Appeal cases. The judges equally take into consideration the mitigation provisions that include hard personal circumstances and remorseful expressions on guilty pleas (Ashworth, 2005). Where offenders admit to respective crimes with usual ways of reducing sentence with a maximum of a third, the judiciary admits that the crime offers least the flexibility. The time of the plea determines the reduction scale (Gibson & Cavadino, 2008). Through consideration of the judge with the factors appropriate to sentence and punishment be pronounced.

A critical element in determining the judicial system includes ensuring that appropriate sentences are attached to each of the offences stated. Ideally, the punishment fits the particular crime. In achieving this, magistrates judges and use guidelines in sentencing (Gibson & Cavadino, 2008). The guide focuses on facilitating sentencing of offenders through consistent ways. All offences and offenders are different policies aimed at making sure that judges and magistrates decide sentences on a standard form. Judges think of the kinds of sentences that are most likely to alter the behavior of offenders (Siegel, 2009). The theory and practice in criminal justice in sentencing undergoes gradual and dramatic changes over the years (Gibson & Cavadino, 2008).

In ancient times, man sought that crimes created imbalances that were rectifiable through punishing wrongdoers. Sentencing was vengeance-oriented. With time, emphasis was placed towards deterrent values of sentencing in future wrongdoing (Gibson & Cavadino, 2008). Even though deterrence focuses on the critical considerations and increasing emphasis towards possibilities of reforming offenders, returning them into the community forms useful citizen. The systems bar harsh penalties as they are imposed on the community through bringing into perspective the various sentencing criteria (Shahidullah, 2012). In modern day, all offenders are perceived to be unique individuals and sentencing judges seek to have an awareness of the drive to commit a crime. These are chances for deterring repetition of similar offenses. Judge's primary objective is to move away from punishing into treating. The responsibility of improving the sentencing techniques is critical to the moral health of the nation. It deserves careful attention as compared to the reception of the public (Gibson & Cavadino, 2008). People were sitting in the bar as well as other civic-minded individuals lead the judges in fighting for legal reforms. The major approaches to this area include apathy and erroneous preconceptions.