Abstract
This paper offers definitions of both objectivism and subjectivism. The paper examines the highly controversial Caldwell case of the early 1980s that can be seen as a prime example of what pulls the British judiciary in competing directions. The paper also looks at the legal concept of "impossible attempts" and its relationship to both subjectivism and objectivism. The paper then shows how the area of the criminal law dealing with physical assault and battery is a good example of how subjectivism and objectivism continue to grapple over legal terrain. The paper concludes that neither approach is entirely without shortcomings, but each approach is certain to gain ascendancy at different times in the future.

From the Paper
"It is generally true that drawing a distinction between the "subjective" and the "objective" is not a particularly easy matter. For example, if the law courts attempt to justify an ascription of recklessness by arguing that someone did not notice an "obvious" risk chiefly because they did not care about that risk and what it might mean for others - a "subjective" position British courts have taken in the past - then they are obviously applying some kind of normative (objective) standard to the matter. Of course, the confusion about what is really subjectivism and what is really objectivism cries out for a definition of both. To wit, subjectivism - broadly stated - believes that "action-ascriptions" which generate criminal liability should be determined solely by looking at what the individual's intentions and beliefs were at the time of the offense. On the other hand, the objectivist camp believes that someone's actual intentions are irrelevant to whether or not they are criminally liable: instead, proponents of objectivism cleave to the view that what actually occurred trumps any intentions or non-intentions the perpetrator might have had."

Tags:Caldwell, case, jurisprudence, criminal, liability, perpetrator, defendant, conviction

Abstract
This paper examines how the period of the industrial revolution was possibly the most influential period in the development of the criminal law and the associated institutions. It looks at how a shift from punishment to the beginnings of rehabilitation took place and how many fundamental concepts of a fair system were beginning to appear to create a solid foundation for what we have now. It also explores how the ideas of justice, equality, reasonableness and the rule of law took over from a simple system of revenge.

From the Paper
"One of the most important changes that occurred during, and partially due to, the industrial revolution was the concept of democracy and the development of a central government with greater powers. This increase in centralisation led to a shift of control from landowners and representatives of the monarch to an elected body able to pass and execute laws on a national basis, rather than the execution being done on a local scale, or as Foucault puts it, a shift from sovereignty to government . This coupled with the migration of people out of the countryside and small rural parishes into sprawling cities broke down the social pattern that had been well established. No longer were people tied to land and thus the land owner, but a free market where people could freely sell their labour to the highest bidder."

Tags:industrial, revolution, peel, democracy, justice, rehabilitation

Abstract
This paper examines the British criminal justice system with reference to statutory instruments, bills, cases and legal opinion. It looks at how the criminal justice system is considered to be one of the most imperative tools available to society for the control of anti-social behaviour and, in particular, how it needs to strike a balance between protecting the innocent and convicting the guilty. It also discusses how the system does not try to establish innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to convict and how this system has lead to many miscarriages of justice and has lead to many honourable persons to believe that a change to the inquisitorial system may prevent this.

From the Paper
"In 1993 the CPS went under a substantial change to increase efficiency. Sir Ian Glidewell stated that ' the 1993 reforms had made the CPS more bureaucratic' He believes that CPS has the potential to become a lively, successful and esteemed part of the criminal justice system. The CPS has not escaped criticism, despite its recent performance. James Hunt QC believed that if the public knew of the cost to them the taxpayer would be appalled . In 1998 the Glidewell Report heavily criticised the CPS. The key recommendations of the report were that the powers should be devolved so that the CPS would become less centralised."

Tags:crime, law, penalties, precedents, reform

Abstract
The paper defines criminal law and explains why the burden of proof in the American criminal justice system is greater than that of the American civil justice system. The paper discusses how the United States derives the structure of its criminal justice system from the English tradition of common law, and explains how most legal systems agree on certain basic premises. The paper also notes that many of the protections of the Bill of Rights pertaining to the criminal justice system only were extended to the state in the 19th century. Finally, the paper considers the controversies that still exist, including the 'three strikes and you're out' laws and capital punishment.

From the Paper
"First of all, what is criminal law? From the point of view of society, crimes are wrongs or violations for which the offender may be punished. Criminal law involves prosecution by the government for an act classified as a wrongdoing against society at large, for which penalties can be extracted varying from incarceration to fines to both (Criminal law, 2008, Cornell University Law School). The criminal law system stands in contrast to civil law, which involves crimes done to a particular victim. The civil suit is brought against the wrongdoer on behalf of the victim. The offender may have to pay financial compensation in civil court, but cannot be required to pay with his or her life or liberty both (Criminal law, 2008, Cornell University Law School). This is why the burden of proof in the American criminal justice system is greater than that of the American civil justice system. In a civil court, the plaintiff need only prove that the preponderance of the evidence shows a crime was committed, in a criminal court the standard for guilt is that it must be shown that beyond a reasonable doubt, a crime was committed."

Tags:Constitution, Bill, of, Rights, prosecution, crime, common, law, judiciary, jury

Abstract
The following paper will explore the debate over subjectivism versus objectivism in matters regarding United Kingdom legal conceptions of criminal culpability. The paper begins first by offering definitions of both objectivism and subjectivism and proceeds from there to look at the extent to which subjectivism can be seen as more exculpatory than objectivism.The paper continues by looking at how objectivism fell into relative eclipse because of one highly controversial case in the early 1980s.

From the Paper
"The following paper will explore the debate over subjectivism v. objectivism in matters regarding United Kingdom legal conceptions of criminal culpability. The paper begins first by offering definitions of both objectivism and subjectivism and proceeds from there to look at the extent to which subjectivism can be seen (at least in some instances) as more exculpatory than objectivism. With that out of the way, the paper then looks at how objectivism fell into relative eclipse courtesy one highly controversial case in the early 1980s and how the Caldwell ruling..."

Tags:british, objectivism, subjectivism

Abstract
This paper examines the 18th century British criminal justice system as an expression of class, property and power. Douglas Hay's article "Property, Authority and Criminal Law" argues that the 18th Century British criminal justice system was based on terror and directed principally to the protection of property. Academic responses, both pro and con, are subsequently evaluated.

Abstract
This paper shows how both the United States and Singapore derived their criminal justice system from the British system, though the U.S. system has diverged considerably while the system in Singapore remains deeply rooted in the British forms. The writer explains however that today, the immediate source for the criminal justice system in each country differs in that American law is constitutional, while criminal law in Singapore is entirely statutory and based on an adopted Criminal Code. It looks at how common law is a feature of both systems, standing as the accepted customs of many legal systems.

From the Paper
"American citizens derive their rights from the Constitution and particularly from the Bill of Rights. These ten articles were influenced largely by George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, with much of the final language based on Mason's "Declaration of Rights" for Virginia's Constitution of 1776. There were originally twelve, but two were eliminated as the final ten were adopted in 1791 (Hall, 1992, 70-71). Article VIII states: "Excessive bail shall not lie required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." These simple words have engendered reams of interpretation, for the Constitution does not say what constitutes either cruel or unusual punishment or how to make such a determination. Other provisions have similarly been argued throughout our history, and judicial determinations up to and including the supreme Court form a body of case law on which the police, prosecutors, and courts rely."

Tags:british, constitution, legal, court, supreme

Abstract
This paper considers the shortcomings of America's law enforcement and criminal justice systems, taking on the position of Reichel that many of these flaws can be remedied by a more sensible incorporation of criminal justice philosophies in place outside of the United States. The paper discusses how American bureaucracy will often prevent agencies from collaborating and also highlights the limitations in America's policy towards juvenile justice. The paper emphasizes the merits of the Japanese and British criminal justice systems and asserts that opportunities are greater than ever to share information and to share methodologies.

From the Paper
"America's criminal justice system suffers from many of the cultural and political shortcomings evident in the U.S. government as a whole. The orientation of the U.S. government is essentially a composite of agencies whose capacity to function both independently and in concert with one another serves as a key determinant of the effectiveness of the policy implementation of public officials, the dexterity of the government in engaging criminal pattern and the ability of the people to access the policy realities of their elected representatives. Any negative connotation appended to such bureaucracy as manner of conduct, policy or procedure may find its roots in the elected leadership by which it is oriented or the sway of public opinion.
"Still, this is a form which ultimately enables the high level of coordination that will emerge between government agencies operating there within. This is the positive understanding of America's law enforcement and criminal justice contexts that Reichel does bring to his conversation from the outset, observing that there is a democratic implication to the laws of due process and jury trial that differentiate the U.S. in a progressive regard."

Tags:law, enforcement, bureaucracy, juvenile, justice, just, desserts, corrections, incarceration, rehabilitation

Abstract
The paper explains that the insanity defense concerns the defendant's state of mind when he or she committed the crime. The paper outlines how the definition of criminal insanity originated in British common law, leading to the M'Naghten rule, and points out the controversy surrounding this defense. The paper then discusses how in almost all cases, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity means being committed to a mental institution until the defendant is deemed to no longer pose a danger to the community. Finally, the paper looks at the rights of those involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

From the Paper
"When a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the public often cries out in outrage. However, some people are found guilty and not criminally insane, despite the fact they commit barbarous actions that only an apparently insane individual would commit. The reason for this apparent contradiction is that the legal definition of insanity is different from either the colloquial definition of insanity (as in: 'you're crazy!') and the clinical, psychological definition of insanity. A person can be mentally unbalanced, yet still able to differentiate from right and wrong, and thus legally sane. Although it can be difficult to determine criminal insanity in a justice system "largely designed to weigh facts and evidence," the insanity defense is largely considered a necessary mercy (Martin 1998)."

Tags:mental, institution, incaceration, M'Naghten, rule

Abstract
This paper discusses the philosophies of subjectivism and objectivism as they apply to criminal liability. It begins by defining each philosophy. It then presents examples of past cases and discusses how subjectivism or objectivism applies to them. The paper also looks at the history of British common law and how subjectivism and objectivism came into play in determining guilt or innocence.

From the Paper
"The objective standard is now changing to the subjective. In the case of B. v. the Director of Public Prosecutions (2000) 1 All ER 833, is a recent example of the shift. In B. the defendant is 15 year old boy accused of incitement of a child under 14 to gross indecency. The young man was sitting on a bus next to a 13 year old girl, he repeatedly requested that she perform sexual acts with him, and she refused all of his advances. The original intent of the legislation would make this a strict liability crime, where the mere commission of the offense would incur criminal liability, actus reus. Using the previous standard for specific intent crimes established in Morgan, a reasonable standard would be applied to determine criminal liability of the boy. With the decision in B. the court now has established an objective standard. Lord Steyn in his opinion stated, "There has been a general shift in from objectivism to subjectivism in the branch of the law."

Tags:guilt, innocence, legislation, court