If Sharon were to be arrested by police, following an investigation, she would have to
face the criminal justice process. First, the police will have to go through their roles and
procedures in investigating and making the arrest. After investigating the scene, the police will
then decide whether or not they will question Sharon. After deciding to question her, police must
read Sharon her Miranda Rights, before interrogating her, in order to protect her 5th Amendment
rights and prevent police from using excessive measures to solicit a confession (lecture notes). In
order to properly arrest Sharon, police must make sure they have probable cause to believe that
Sharon did commit this crime of killing her abusive husband; Once that is done they will need to
get a warrant, issued by a judge, for her arrest then the booking will occur
(criminal.findlaw.com).
When the police officially arrest Sharon, the prosecution will step in. The prosecutor will
try to come to a decision on what charge they will press on Sharon. Once the charge is decided
on, the prosecutor will have an initial appearance, then the primary hearing, then bring it to the
grand jury. He or she will bring up evidence in the court room and try to prove that Sharon did in
fact kill her husband. The prosecutor will cover these roles: Trial counsel for the police, house
counsel for police, represent the court, and act as an elected official (lecture notes). In pursuit of
a charge, the prosecutor will take some things into consideration like the type of abuse that the
husband inflicts on Sharon, prior criminal history/ mental health of Sharon, her state of mind
when the crime was committed, and maybe the prosecutor will also look into whether or not
Sharon’s actions were premeditated or done in the heat of the moment.
Sharon’s defense attorney’s primary role will be to ensure that the prosecution proves its
case in court before Sharon is convicted of this crime (lecture notes). Also, especially in this
case, the attorney will probably keep close ties with other criminal justice officials because a plea
bargain because it could be important (lecture notes). On Sharon’s behalf, her attorney may
suggest that going in a “self–defense” route would be the best option. Her attorney can exercise
the idea that the killing of Sharon’s husband was done due do “necessity”. The necessity defense
is used when a person breaks the law to save herself/himself or to prevent some greater harm
(lecture notes). In this situation, this defense would be used to justify Sharon’s actions. Her
attorney would probably say that Sharon committed this crime because she has been repeatedly
beaten by her husband and she was afraid that if nothing was done about this then her husband
would continue to beat her, making her fear for her life everyday she is with him.
A judge is expected to embody the ideals of the Criminal Justice System and fairness,
they are to act as an adjudicator, negotiator, and administrator (lecture notes). In Sharon’s case,
the judge will be listening to the defense’s side, and the prosecutor’s side but while doing this,
the judge will make sure everything said in front of the jury follows the rules and regulations of
the court and all evidence was obtained legally. During the case, the jury will listen to both sides
and come to a conclusion based solely on the evidence presented in court and that decision
between guilty and not guilty must be beyond a reasonable doubt (lecture notes). If the case
doesn’t go before a jury, then usually the judge will carry out a sentence for Sharon(lecture
notes).
In Texas, the death penalty is passed. In Sharon’s case, if the defense is successful in
getting their message across, then I do not think Sharon should be given the death penalty. I
don’t not think she should be given the death penalty because Sharon’s crime was committed out
of fear that she would continually be harmed if this wasn’t done. In my eyes, a possible
punishment would be 25 years to life in prison. Sharon would still be punished severely for
committing a murder, but will not be sentenced to death for her actions. The goal of this
punishment would be deterrence and incapacitation (lecture notes). She will be severely
punished for her crime and isolated to prevent her from committing another crime.
2) “Locking up criminals makes sense. The most important goal of punishment is, and
always will be, to get criminals off our streets.” At the end of the day, this claim can be seen as
true. It is true that the ultimate goal of the criminal justice system is to put criminals in a position
where they can’t commit any more crimes in the future. There are multiple goals of punishment.
Retribution is one of them that focusses primarily on giving a punishment to someone as a
vengeance for a wrong or criminal act (lecture notes). Rehabilitation is the re-integration into
society of a convicted person and the main objective of modern penal policy
(criminal.findlaw.com). Deterrence’s purpose is to prevent crime from happening again while
covering these three factors: severity, certainty, and swiftness. It also is meant to send a message
(lecture notes). Incapacitation serves to isolate the criminal, preventing them from committing
more crimes whether it is through incarceration, house arrest, or death penalty (lecture notes).
One of the newer goals is “restoration”, which is the punishment that is designed to repair the
damage done to the victim and community by an offender’s crime (lecture notes). All of these
goals of punishment have something and common and that is to prevent crime from occurring
again.
I think that the Criminal Justice system should focus more on incapacitation and
rehabilitation. To me, incapacitation should be the most important because it focusses most on
