Sentencing Provisions of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 Article

Sentencing Provisions of the Criminal Justice be of 2003 - Article ExampleAs a result, there has been considerable political input into the criminal nicety exhibit, notably through sentencing guidelines, in response to pressure from the public fuelled by high levels of media attention to crime. In striving to earn the balance between the need to enclose crime and the need to ensure that the rights of individuals be preserved to uphold the legal principle that every criminal suspect is unimpeachable until proven guilty, sentencing guidelines in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 may need to be improved upon, beca engross they may not of necessity be serving the interests of justice in every instance.The criminal justice scheme may be analyzed in the context of two distinguishable models (a) the collectable process model and (b) the crime condition model, both of which impact differently upon the manner in which criminals are punished under the system1. The focus of the due p rocess model is upon the individual citizen, which produces a corresponding emphasis on the need to reduce the powers of officials such(prenominal) as the police so that they do not abuse their position through their widespread use of their coercive powers over individuals who are suspects in any crime. As a result, at every distributor point of the criminal justice process, there must be formal safeguards established in order to encourage the rights of those suspected of committing a crime. The crime control model on other hand adopts a different view and control of criminal conduct is the ultimate objective to be achieved. The assumption under this system is that society must operate as efficiently as possible in order to achieve the goal of crime control. Police officers and Prosecutors are viewed as the ideal agents to screen out those who are innocent rather than relying upon court proceedings to achieve the same goal, or allowing a higher degree of magnificence to the right s of suspects to challenge the criminal justice process if it is found to be oppressive. The crime control model accordingly allows for extra judicial proceedings to also be incorporated, such as entering guilty pleas from defendants in order to speed up the trial process. Saunders and Young offer the view that while many of the alimentation in several criminal justice Acts including PACE and the CJA 2003 would appear to reflect a due process model, in terms of actual practice, the system appears to function on the basis of several of the characteristics of the crime control model. Where the question of stop and search powers are concerned for example, they state Stop and search in its motion corresponds far more closely to the crime control model than the due process model to which the impartiality is purportedly orientated.2 The crime control model would also be centered upon a vindicatory model of justice, where criminals are punished for their crimes and may serve to satisf y the need for punishment raised by public perception about the extent of heinousness of a crime. The due process model on the other hand, would adopt a more restorative form of justice, where harm and redress are emphasized, so that there is a greater focus upon rehabilitating offenders and ensuring that they