Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
|Subject area||Self Improvement|
The problem in this question is regarding the impact of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) into previous British Legislation system seeing one of the aims of punishment i.e. retribution. It is a duty for courts to employ under section 142 (1) of CJA 2003. The part requires the courts to have regarded the aims in imposing sentence to criminals that has now plays a bigger role in serving punishment. And how profound this varies has been. I will discuss briefly about (a) historic background of CJA 2003, (b) identify who's CJA successor, (c) recognise difference in principle between CJA and its own i.e. principles, goals and prioritises, (d) as how it attract effect to aims of Legislation now to offenders, victims and communities, (e) and also clarify which kind of goals actually the court depending upon in deciding the proper sentence to adult offenders in regard to custodial and sentence. To agree or not to agree with the announcement. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SENTENCING POLICY Before 1991, there was no statutory provision or overall statutory framework containing aims of Legislation which courts ought to rely upon. This had left the courts to choose its own based on the details of the situation what's the best sentence for criminal. But, by granting unlimited power of this court in fixing sentence, this triggered doubt according to what foundation the courts has reached upon such sentence. Hence, in 1991, CJA was put up in order to have a systematic strategy to achieve goals of punishment. The main provisions under the 1991 Act were dominant by retributive theories which focused on paragraphs must commensurate with the seriousness of the statute. However, some areas of the laws reflect utilitarian theories in the g.. .