Criminal Law in the United States of America
LAW 516 - Criminal Law
Arizona State University
April 7, 2023
Introduction
It is first of all necessary to define the scope of criminal law and its
implication upon society. It could be reasonably defined that criminal law
is that offshoot of law that bans certain kinds of conduct or behavior and
deems it intrinsic to enforce punishment or penal action upon those who
transgress the limits of such proscribed conduct. In simple terms, criminal
law dictates the limits and ambit of human behavior and enforces
punishment if such limits are crossed.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. But the interesting
feature in criminal laws systems is that the following aspects must be
present for granting of conviction to the accused:
1. There is a specific law that prohibits the commission of certain action
2. This specific law has been transgressed or violated and has been
proved in court beyond doubt.
3. As a consequence, the actionable claim has arisen to the victim or
the aggrieved as convincing to the Jury members.
When these pre-conditions are assessed, it is seen that for an alleged crime
to be legally enforceable, there need to be laws that specifically prohibit
its commissioning. In other words, a person cannot be convicted or even
charged with a crime, unless there is some statute or law that emphatically
and denounces it and makes it susceptible to punishment.
Therefore, actions that do not come within the scope of criminal law
cannot be enforced by it and thus, such events, however illegal they may
be, are non-enforceable.
Gomez vs. People case
The loopholes in the criminal systems have been proved in many cases
when the courts have held that actions by law enforcement officers were
beyond their jurisdiction and resulted in damages to the property of the
defendant beyond their consent and that could be reasonably deduced
from the nature of the offense.
In the case of Gomez vs. People case, “The question presented by this
appeal is whether a police officer may conduct a destructive search of an
automobile based on a suspect’s general consent to search. “ (This opinion
is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Reports, 2005, p.1).
In this case, the courts held that the action taken by the police officer far
exceeded the consent and reasonable limits.
Conclusions
It is seen that the fundamental principle of criminal law in the United States
is based upon the premise that people should accept responsibility for
their actions, whether good or bad. In the event their actions are illegal,
they would need to accept the punishment that follows such perceived
misdeeds. However, it is also seen that it is for the courts of competent
jurisdiction, federal courts in case the nature of the alleged crime
committed is federal, and, alternatively, by state courts, if the
characteristic of crime is of a state nature, to pass judgments accordingly.
Notwithstanding the administrative jurisdiction of courts to try crimes and
punish criminals, it is also necessary to consider the fact that most courts
would place objectivity and materiality as major premises on which the
hearings are based and the arguments presented to the jury as key factors
in deciding the course and verdicts of individual cases.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States. Illusory and reality
perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Illusory and reality perspectives of criminal laws
However, it is often seen that criminal laws in statute books and actions
may be at variance. In actual reality, applications of laws are quite different
from what we watch on TV or in movies. It would not be wrong to suggest
that laws are made to suit powerful interest groups, who have political and
economic clout even to make or unmake laws in the United States.
The “dual systems of courts and dual practices of punishment” (Grossberg,
& Tomlines, 2008, p.179) ensured that more often than not, the rich and
powerful got away with their misdeeds.
Conflict of interests
Thus, there is an eternal conflict of interest between the powerful sections
whose intentions may not always be honest or altruistic and the suffering
masses that are often at the receiving end of discrimination and legal
manipulations. This way the aim and intention of law, in terms of justice
and fair play, maybe compromised at times, defeating the very purpose of
criminal law and its applications in specific situations, caused by unequal
distribution of power and resources. The implication is that with this sort
of unequal distribution of power and resources, segments with greater
power can dominate the masses with lesser or no power, much to the
latter’s disadvantage and distress. (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001).
Criminal Law in the United States of America
It is seen that, unlike what most people believe, the criminal law system in
the US has evolved out of political necessity and social demands. Like all
other democratic countries that take pride in the protection of interests of
the majority, in the US too, the minority rules over the proletariat and
initiates laws, ostensibly for their protection. But the laws may essentially
be made to protect the interests of the rich and the powerful and not
necessarily to seek retribution for the marginalized and aggrieved part of
society.
However, with the passage of time and the end of the colonial era, people
began to realize that social groups could exercise influence over the legal
system and ensure justice and fair play. Criminal laws evolved to
compensate the aggrieved and punish the perpetrators of crimes,
especially those with social connotations. Thus, “The concept of criminal
law developed only when the notion of private vengeance was replaced by
the principle that in some instances the community was also injured when
harm came to its members.” (Quinney, & Trevino, 2001, p.44).
Aspects of criminal jurisprudence
Further, there are several other aspects of criminal law that may be
interesting and, at the same time, surprising. It is commonly believed that
for an act or action to be termed as criminal, the need for two aspects
men’s rea (mental state) and actus reus (wrong act) is necessary. Men’s rea
refers to the state of mind of the alleged criminal, and actus reus is about
the actual commission of the crime, with intention and purpose. (Scheb,
2009).
However, it is seen that sometimes the intent may not be present, and yet,
the crime may be within culpable limits. For instance, serving alcohol to
minors or possessing drugs without apparent malafide intentions may be
within the ambit of crime or strict liability offenses and prosecuted
accordingly, although no offense or harm may have been done.
Materiality and objectivity in the criminal justice delivery system
One of the main aspects of criminal law is the initiation of a prosecution
and the pronouncement of sentences to the offenders after they are
proved guilty by a competent court of justice. In most cases, the jury does
not have the time or the intentions of going beyond the scope of what is
being presented by way of the charge sheet, the defense produced by the
plaintiff and defendants, the arguments and deliberations, and the
perspectives taken by the courts by the evidence before them and the
strength of arguments from both sides. Thus, objectivity and dispassion are
the hallmarks of criminal laws in the United States.
Reference
Grossberg, M., & Tomlines, C. (2008). The Cambridge history of law in
America. Cambridge University Press. 179. Web.
Quinney, AR., & Trevino, J. (2001). The social reality of crime. Transaction
Publishers. Web.
Quinney, AR., & Trevino, J. (2001). The social reality of crime: Emergence
of criminal law. Transaction Publishers. 44. Web.
Scheb, EM. (2009). Criminal law and procedure (Hardcover). Amazon. Web.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the
New York Reports: Ciparick, J. (2005).1. Web.
