The word Crime observed under the ordinary language states that it is an act that is unlawful as well as punishable under the law by a state or any other authority having the same power to do the same. It is to be mentioned that it may involve any violence, drugs, or sex, also as discrimination, burglary, undeclared work, or road rage. The act or event that occurred should be punishable by the law as it constitutes to be an offence.
Overviewing the same, observed that the violent crime is considered to be increased in the past years, but the one holding the supremacy of the justice system regarding the same acts do not intend to know how to get it under the system. The series “crime: Are we tough enough” is taken for its critical observation, where the whole observation will be taken into the consideration of two advocates who started wandering in the local streets, meeting officers, police officials, prisoners, offenders, and other law-abiding officers for a better understanding of the concept of crime in Britain. Their main focus was to minimize the crime rates in Britain along with the thorough observation of each episode with a conclusion, where later on in the same essay, discretion and discrimination are also discussed under the criminal justice system.
Crime: are we tough enough.
Reviewing this series of a documentary based on the law and thoughts of the people related to the legislature is a big and complex work to work upon. Here two advocates seem to have contradicting thoughts and ideas related to the judicial procedure of implementing laws in respect of the offences taking place.
QC Chris Daw (Advocate), in this series, steps in with his ideology of lesser restrictions and punishments to ease a few acts of the people considered an offence; he is defending the accused here. On the other hand, Ayesha Nayyar (Advocate), being the solicitor, represents the victims with a strong thought process. She recommends the procedure of the judiciary to consider every minor point in detail with proper and strict punishments abiding by the law. According to
This documentary is observed to be focusing on the various ways due to which the rising crime will be reduced to some extent. Here Chris is seen stating his points of reducing the punishment of putting accused behind bars for a lesser day considering the fact that the jails are over-filled, where he proposed the method to legalize many drugs so that the nation may get a low rate of expected crime. Ayesha sticks to the vintage procedure of long sentences and more prosecution practice regarding a small crime as well, as no crime is small. Both for the same meet appropriate field officers, where they found more facts and clear pictures of their thoughts were to help each other to understand their thoughts and respective points, they asked the other person to meet people supporting their points.
Later, when both the advocates met to keep their point in front of each other, Chris was taken aback after a whole session of argument related to the prison and its commencement procedure. Here Ayesha considers that the guilty shall be behind bars after overviewing the culprit’s charges, whereas at first, Chris strongly denied the same, stating that the punishment should be for a few time, but Ayesha asked him to meet a family, where they lost their son, due to one guilty who was out on the prison license, which predicts that no one is safe if harsh and strong steps are not taken against the culprit who is found guilty in the eye of law.
Ayesha was also shocked to see that many weapons are homemade nowadays, whereas, on the other hand, it was observed by Chris that many people are opting for violence and are problem makers by themselves. Both Ayesha and Chris were seen astonished to come to know the reality of people on the streets of Britain.
After all the episodes, it was observed that both the advocates had their point with strong beliefs where at sometimes they both were hardly impressed with modern techniques but were awestruck by many vintage procedures like stop and search for Ayesha as she witnessed the lively procedure of the same, where on the other hand Chris seems to be impressed with the transitions states have in dealing with the culprits like the Scotland police motto of “you cannot arrest your way out of the violence problem” keeping his points strong to be present before the jury. Later the jury, after seeing all the points by both of them in their supporting argument, took a separate consultation with 12 jurists and also cross-questioned for further clarification.
As a whole, all the jury persons, including Chris and Ayesha, it was summarized that the need for the concerned point’s discussion was to know the crime and its reason for rising where simultaneously, the remedy was also proposed according to each and every situation. A five-point action plan was to be proposed jointly by them for the further procedure. After the observation of the said documentary, it was observed that it has the right balance, which hit on the point of information and its analysis. It is caught between both dramatized as well as emotive narration, which states the present state of the society along with the criminal justice system. Counting the people who have faith in law and in this particular field of practitioners, this documentary provides fewer points for debates in which most of the people will willfully participate too.
The term discretion is considered as the power or the granted latitude of the official to act according to the set forms setting the judgment and rules and which are out of the conscience based on the public capacity. It seems under the abused context when it comes to the fanciful, arbitrary or unreasonable action by the judicial practice.
Discretion in Criminal Justice System
In the context of the CJS, it is observed that the rules and regulations themselves are considered to be the result of discretion by the others under the criminal justice system, where if the legislature is taken into consideration, it is the origin of the criminal code under the jurisdiction. It can be seen in the most critical analyzed rules, which allow the discretion; however, if the plaintiff or the respondent states that the discretion was abused by the same trial court judge, the same party may appeal the said case. Lately, the observation states that this type of gainsaying takes place in the case of the mandatory sentences, where the judge’s job is to start reviewing the matter by understanding the goal under the formal rule of a system as well as the judge need to also review whether the said trial court judges understood the matter before abusing the discretion regarding the same, in context with implementing the legislature properly while acting properly during the trial. For a better study, a few books are also available, namely taking rights seriously by Dworkin, 1977, along with many other authors.
Observing the term discrimination defines the un-equality one faces or suffers within the eye of the law. This is a way one is treated, which is different or in an unlike, unfairly manner. It can be due to race, caste, colour, creed, personal characteristic, status, religion, disability or any other factor. It can take place either in a direct way or in an indirect way as per the other person’s treatment.
Discrimination and law
The government has passed several bills and also tends to protect the people of its nation by the creation of many acts, such as the Equality Act, 2010, where many factors are being described and re termed as the protected characteristics. But saddened by the fact that there is a high ratio of discrimination taken place to date after several protection activities were taken into the act by the government. There have been several reports regarding the same matter in context with the CJS, where it was reviewed that the treatment of as well as the outcome for the Asian, minorities, Black, another caste, ethnic people based on the CJS was not appropriate according to the law, but was done by the people of law only. It was also observed that the CJS was working under disproportionality along with discrimination almost at all the stages.
Regardless of the concluding research papers and studies, it is widely considered that in association with the discrimination acts, the issue regarding the perception of the public regarding the CJS working will be the same as per the belief among the minorities that the judiciary system does discriminate against them which is unjust and unacceptable in nature. In concluding this part, the existing decision-makers of the system must abide ethically to eradicate suggestions based on racial or any other discriminatory factors from their decisions. Hence many recommendations shall be proposed to address this fundamental right of equality fairly dealt with in future.