Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
What are the advantages and disadvantages of 'reactive' and 'proactive' approaches to police investigation?
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 2001 Views: 1526 Comments: 0
Both Reactive and Proactive police investigations are used in Britain today in order to apprehend and punish criminals for breaking the law, from crimes like burglary and assault, to much more serious crimes such as drug dealing, fraud and murder. The crime control model states how important law enforcement is, as, unless criminal conduct is kept under tight control, the view is that there will be a breakdown in public order and a limit to human freedom. This essay aims to introduce and describe the two methods of policing and also to discuss their advantages and disadvantages. The...

In conclusion, both reactive and proactive methods of policing are invaluable and necessary if practised along side one another. Reactive aims to deal with the consequences of crime and the victims, whereas proactive is a more crime preventative measure, aiming to stop the crime before it happens. There is much scope for improvement inside the system and many problems, such as the time consuming reactive work, which allows the officers little time for anything else. Also the proactive approach only works if the forces have adequate staff, equipment and training to deal with the demand on them.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

One of the most vaguely understood...One of the most vaguely understood events in the United States is the modern criminal trial. Most people have a faint knowledge of the goings-on of criminal proceedings, mainly due to what is seen on television, but the person who knows the real course of a trial is rare. However, there is nothing mysterious about the events that determine criminal guilt. Trials are carefully orchestrated, following procedures that have been laid in legal concrete over the years, and generally follow the same basic format across the United States. Criminal law is distinguishable from civil law in the aspect that criminal acts are officially considered to injure not only individuals, but society as a whole. This is the reason why criminal cases are described as state v. offender. The state, as the injured party, is taking the defendant to court. The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine if the offender is legally guilty of the crime, but this does not necessarily mean that the person in question committed the crime. As opposed to factual guilt the person 'did it', legal guilt merely means that a jury of the defendant's peers is convinced without reasonable doubt. As can be seen, this leaves room for possible discrepancies. Before a trial can proceed, certain events must take place. The first is the arraignment of the defendant, which can happen anytime between arrest and a logical, non-specific time before the trial itself. Arraignment consists of the court reading to the defendant the substance of the charge, and calls on the subject to enter a plea within a given time. The defendant may consult with and be advised by an attorney on what plea to offer the court. He may plead guilty or no contest nolo contendere, in which case a trial does not occur and the subject goes directly to a sentencing hearing, or he may plead not guilty, and trial preparations will proceed. In very rare cases the defendant will not enter a plea, and is said to 'stand mute.' Directly after entering a plea of not guilty, the defendant must decide on one, if any, of many courses of defense to follow. A plea of guilty or no contest that is withdrawn by the defendant cannot be used as evidence against the defendant. One of the most popular defenses is the alibi defense. This course of action holds that the defendant was at another location at the time of the offense, and therefore could not possibly have committed the crime. If an alibi is to be offered, the defendant has a court-appointed time in which he must declare his intentions. The attorney for the state will send a notice describing the time, date, and place of the offense, and the defendant must refute this information. If the defendant issues notice of alibi but then withdraws the claim, this information cannot be held against him later in court. Another popular defense is the insanity defense. The court definition holds that "a person should not be guilty if they did not know what they were doing, did not know that what they were doing was wrong, or if their actions were the result of a mental disease or defect." This obviously covers a lot of area, which is part of the reason for its popularity. If the defendant plans to claim insanity, he must notify, in writing, the state's attorney of his intentions, and also file a copy with the court clerk. Failure to follow these guidelines results in the disallowance of the insanity claim. A withdrawn claim of insanity is not admissible as evidence against the defendant. There are many other defenses, divided into three categories, that are much less common than alibi and insanity. The first of these categories is designated 'other defenses.' The following are examples of these. 'Temporary Insanity' implies that the defendant was only insane at the time of the offense, and was once a very popular defense, as the defendant usually got off "scot-free". However, due to recent restrictions, it has lost its appeal. 'Guilty but Insane,' a defense that is all but extinct, resulted in a stiff penalty, but mandatory psychotherapy was included in any sentence. 'Involuntary Drunkenness,' holding that the defendant was intoxicated against his will, is rarely used, although it has resulted in a number of successes in court. 'Unconsciousness' is even more rare of a defense, and is used if the defendant committed a crime while sleepwalking, having a seizure etc. A 'Chemical Imbalance' defense is used if the defendant's actions were influenced by the consumption of food products or stimulants, including but not limited to sugar, nicotine, and caffeine. 'Premenstrual Stress Syndrome,' or PMS, is a very new defense and not yet even officially acceptable. However, it has been successfully used in Virginia. The second group of defenses is labeled 'special defenses.' One that is fairly commonly used is 'Self Defense,' holding that the defendant committed the crime in self-defense to avoid physical harm. 'Duress,' on the other hand, is not common, and is used when the defendant claims to have committed a crime in order to alleviate a prior wrongdoing against him. The 'Entrapment' defense has become the subject of media attention, since its implications are a bit sinister. It is implied that law enforcement officers have created a crime solely for the purpose of prosecuting the defendant. In the case of an 'Accident' defense, the offense is said to have been purely accidental on the part of the defendant. 'Mistake' says that the defendant committed an unwitting crime due to outside forces that precipitated the actual offense. A defense of 'Necessity' is rare, and is only used when the survival of the defendant was at stake. It is only truly useful if no serious harm was done. 'Provocation' is a fairly new defense, and one that was sought after by defense attorneys for years. Under this defense, a defendant is acknowledged to have been provoked by a tormentor to the point of lashing out. 'Consent,' the last defense of this group, holds that the crime committed was done under consent of the victim. The last group of defenses is the 'procedural defenses' that point fault at the court. The first of these is 'Double Jeopardy.' This occurs when a subject is prosecuted twice for the same offense. Although this is unacceptable under the Constitution, there is an exception to the rule. If a crime was committed in two jurisdictions, then two separate trials may be held. 'Selective Prosecution' charges that the defendant has been singled out for prosecution due to discriminating factors. A defense of 'Denial of Speedy Trial' is usually quite effective, because a trial must be held within a reasonable, given time after arrest. If the court breaks this rule, the defendant must be released. This rule is not applicable if trial is delayed by actions of the defense. The last defense is 'Prosecutorial Misconduct,' and holds that the prosecution has used bad ethical practices, such as hiding evidence or producing false testimony. Another defense, the 'Infancy Defense,' may only be used by children. "Children below the age of seven cannot be tried for any crime, no matter how serious." The age of prosecution as an adult varies, but ranges from ten to eighteen years of age. Disclosure is a major part of trial rights. Upon request from the defendant, the government must disclose all evidence and testimony that is to be brought against the defendant. On the other hand, if this occurs, the defendant must disclose defense evidence to the government if requested. At the same time as the other trial preparations, the jury for the trial is selected, usually from the same district as the crime was committed in, and subpoenas are sent to witnesses. Subpoenas are issued by the clerk and state the name of the court and the proceeding. They may also command the person to produce documents or other evidence. "Failure without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena may be deemed contempt of the court." Once a trial actually begins, the struggle of the prosecuting attorney against the defense attorney becomes evident. The attorneys should have at least a token belief that their subject is in the right. A criminal defense attorney may proclaim himself a fighter for truth and justice, and he may be precisely that, but once a case is accepted, his only responsibility is to his client, regardless of belief. Even defense attorneys who are convinced that their client is guilty are still exhorted to offer the best possible defense and to counsel their client as effectively as possible. The prosecutor, too, may claim to seek truth and justice, and is probably already convinced he knows the truth and believes in the defendant's guilt. However, if he finds he no longer believes the defendant is guilty, he has a legal responsibility to stop the proceedings. The first actions in court are the opening statements by both attorneys. The opening statements show the jury what the attorneys plan to do to prove their cases and how the proof will be offered. After the opening statements, witnesses are called, generally by the prosecution first. In most cases, witness testimony is the chief means by which evidence is introduced at trial. Among others, witnesses may include victims, police officers, specialists, and the defendant, although the defendant has the right to not testify under the 5th Amendment. "Some witnesses may have been present during the commission of the alleged offense, while most will have had only a later opportunity to investigate the situation or to analyze evidence." Traditionally, witnesses must face the court and defendant while testifying, although there have been exceptions. Most states allow children to testify remotely so as not to be traumatized. There are three types of witnesses. Eyewitnesses are used more often by the prosecution, and claim to have been at the scene of the crime. Character witnesses tell about the character of the defendant, and may be used by both sides. Alibi witnesses are only used by the defense, and try to convince the jury that the defendant was elsewhere at the time of the offense. When a witness is called, he undergoes a line of questioning by the friendly attorney. This is called "direct examination." When the attorney is finished, the opposing attorney steps forth to interrogate the same witness. This is called "cross-examination." Usually, cross- examination may only contest material covered during the direct examination. The witness will have gone over the questions and answers for both examinations with both attorneys beforehand. Some witnesses give untrue testimony to protect the defendant. If demonstrated to be false during examinations, witnesses can be impeached by the court and charged with perjury, a crime in itself. There are several types of testimony that are inadmissible as evidence. Hearsay evidence is described as what a witness heard from another person, rather than what he saw or experienced firsthand. Allowances, however, can be given under certain circumstances. One is the dying declaration, which is a statement made by a person who is about to die. A second instance is that of the spontaneous statement, which is made by a person in the heat of excitement without time for fabrication. Irrelevant or immaterial evidence is testimony that goes beyond or misses the point of the question asked, and statements of opinion show only what a witness thinks, rather than what he knows. Physical evidence, if any, is brought forth during witness testimony. There are two classes of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence, if believed, proves a fact without opinionation. It can be testimonial, which is the aforementioned witness testimony, or it can be physical. There are three kinds of physical evidence. Documents are anything written or typed, objects are weapons, clothing, and the like, and copies and reproductions include photographs and recordings. Physical evidence is only subject to challenge on grounds of authenticity or manner in which it was obtained. "Circumstantial evidence, however, requires inference and drawn conclusions." It is often enough to convict anyway. After all witnesses and evidence have been shown, the attorneys give closing arguments, also called 'summations.' Closing arguments are direct attacks on the opposing side's weaknesses. They provide review and analysis of evidence. Testimony, exhibits, and inconsistencies in the opposition will be pointed out. Many good defense attorneys are effective showmen. They try to play on the feelings of the jurors during this crucial point of the trial. The argument is often emotional and poetry or verse is sometimes used. The prosecution, however, is only likely to use one emotion: outrage at the defendant. The situation during summations is favorable to the prosecution, who, in the vast majority of instances, opens the argument. After a rebuttal by the defense, the prosecution then has an opportunity for counter-rebuttal. In any case, the prosecution is always given the last word in closing arguments. After summations, the judge gives his 'charge to the jury.' He calls on the jury to retire and select one of their number as the foreman, and deliberate upon the evidence that has been presented until a verdict has been reached. He also summarizes all testimony, makes comments, and gives guidance. "It is often considered the single most important statement made during a trial." Once the jury leaves the courtroom for deliberations, they immediately choose a foreman, whose job it will be to deliver the final verdict. The jury may deliberate for hours, days, or weeks, and may examine evidence, review testimony, analyze the judge's charge, discuss, argue, and negotiate. Disagreements emerge early, but the majority almost always wins. Surprisingly, immediate unanimous decisions are not uncommon "“ they account for about 31 percent of all verdicts. Most jurisdictions require a unanimous decision, although the United States Supreme Court has ruled that only capital cases must warrant a unanimous verdict. Jurors are not allowed to discuss the case with relatives, friends, or each other until the proper time, because it is known that thinking is affected by the influence of others. "Scientific studies have shown that people instinctively and subconsciously want to be with the majority, and because of this, are not likely to hold out in an argument against the rest of the jury." During deliberations, if the case is important enough and the judge believes there is risk of the jury being influenced by outside sources, he may sequester jurors, putting them in a hotel with little contact with the outside world. Even newspapers and television may be censored. Telephone calls are short and monitored, and windows are usually covered over so as not to let the jurors see anything that may influence their thoughts. Deliberations will ultimately end in either a verdict or a 'hung jury.' In a hung jury, the members "debate, argue, plead, and finally admit defeat," not being able to agree on a verdict. Hung juries are usually just replaced, but sometimes the trial is stopped, and the time and money involved, which is sometimes quite substantial, is wasted. But a verdict is reached successfully 99 percent of the time. The jury, led by the foreman, gives the verdict to the judge in open court. If the verdict is guilty, the defense attorney may choose to 'poll the jury.' He asks each juror his personal opinion, and in a few cases, a juror's doubts re-emerge to cancel the verdict. This rarely happens, but if it does the result is a victory for the defense. A criminal trial is a complicated but closely choreographed event. Almost nothing happens without proper precedent, and even the most factually guilty defendant can be sure of having at least a small chance of getting "off the hook." The unbiased trial is a constitutional institution that may not always make sense to the average person, but that reflects the value of justice in American society.   

One of the most vaguely understood events in the United States is the modern criminal trial. Most people have a faint knowledge of the goings-on of criminal proceedings, mainly due to what is seen on television, but the person who knows the real course of a trial is rare. However,...

Words: 2721 View(s): 179 Comment(s): 0
Capital punishment should be abolished from...Capital punishment should be abolished from law since it is definitely inhumane, and uncivilized. Nevertheless the fact that it is cruel, many people still consider capital punishment mandatory to the society. However, in my opinion, this type of punishment is not well chosen. Also, if a criminal had been killed because of death sentence, but turns out that the criminal had never committed a felony, it can be a catastrophic disaster. These strong reasons have built up on me and created me into a person who always have his face contorted in anguish when hears letters that are spelt with "C-A-P-I-T-A-L P-U-N-I-S-H-M-E-N-T." Minority of people say that capital punishments are necessity to the society we are living in. The strongest purpose that compels people to determine that death sentence is compulsory is that: if a criminal had done a horrendous massacre, he/she should die horrendously like the many others whom got killed in the event. However, my fellow citizens, do you know for sure that the criminal had committed the felony? Also, another reason is that it costs money for criminal to stay in a jail because of provisions and other necessary needs. Many people would agree with this statement, but as far as I am concerned, these people have black hearts. "“ DO YOU THINK THAT HUMAN LIVES CAN BE REFERRED TO MONEY? Sentencing capital punishment is an unethical decision. One of the reason is that only god, should determine on births and deaths of people, not mortals. Death penalties are not the only punishments that can be taken, and there are some different ways to deal with capital punishment. For example, sentencing life in prison is a decent way for a criminal to regret the actions that he/she had done. If a prisoner had achieved and learned to behave well and know the consequences of any regrettable actions, they might have rights to go back to life. For example, a terrorist who supported the catastrophe, 9/11 attack, was not sentenced death penalty, even though it had helped to kill thousands of people. Instead, he was sentenced life in jail. Statistics show that capital punishment had reduced in U.S.A since 1930s which was the era that capital punishments were usual. Have you ever considered whether the criminal was not a genuine criminal? Statistics from Bureau of Justice shows that since 1973, over 120 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. However, if the court decides to sentence death penalty and executes a criminal, what would happen if the criminal was really innocent? More drastic measures would be taken, and would make anarchy between the people who loved the person who got executed and the judge. If there was no such thing as capital punishment, there would be no such thing as anarchy between people. As I reach the conclusion, the vocabulary that would make my face twisted in anguish is "CAPITAL PUNISHMENT." No matter what the criminal had done, only the three sisters should cut the string, not the mortals. Also, you cannot buy a person, which means people can"t be referred to money because it is just unethical. It would be more disastrous to find out that the person whom got executed to turn out that the person is innocent. Death penalty is not the only disciplinary to deal with criminals; judges can sentence criminals life in prison which is more civilized and totally more humane.   

Capital punishment should be abolished from law since it is definitely inhumane, and uncivilized. Nevertheless the fact that it is cruel, many people still consider capital punishment mandatory to the society. However, in my opinion, this type of punishment is not well chosen. Also, if a criminal had been killed...

Words: 606 View(s): 167 Comment(s): 0