Discretion in the Criminal Justice System
Discretion In The Criminal Justice System
Discretion is the eminence of once behavior or the way of speaking in order to avoid any offensive occurrence or speaking up any private issues or information in public. It is the self-determination for someone to choose or think what should be better to be done in particular circumstances. Especially for a judge, a public official or other private party has the authority to make decisions on any legal matters or other big official subjects. Thus, a person who is authorized with the power of discretion often thinks about how to apply the given supremacy.
In the criminal justice system, discretion is often performed by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries, correctional officials and paroling authorities. They are the ones to decide who should be the ones for criminal penalties and what kind of punishments they should be given. For example: Police are the ones who decides which person has committed grievous crimes and that the person should be arrested or not. They also decide on enforcing specific laws, examine detailed crimes, investigate crime scene locations and search criminals and victims. Prosecutors are the ones to file charges against someone with complaints. They are the ones to make an official decision about a problem or dispute. They look for a formal accusation of a serious before presenting to the grand jury. And they have the authority for reducing charges for someone. Judges or magistrates are the one to set up bails and state of affairs to release a prisoner. They accept pleas, determine criminal behavior, release paroles, enforce sentences and withdraw probation. Correctional Officials are securities who maintain protection and precautions within one institution or in prison for staffs’ and prisoners’ health and safety. They are also authorized to punish for penalizing infringements. Paroling authorities are the ones to determine the dates and conditions for paroles and invalidate paroles.
Discretion is the eminence of once behavior or the way of speaking in order to avoid any offensive occurrence or speaking up any private issues or information in public. It is the self-determination for someone to choose or think what should be better to be done in particular circumstances. Especially for a judge, a public official or other private party has the authority to make decisions on any legal matters or other big official subjects. Thus, a person who is authorized with the power of discretion often thinks about how to apply the given supremacy.
In the criminal justice system, discretion is often performed by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries, correctional officials and paroling authorities. They are the ones to decide who should be the ones for criminal penalties and what kind of punishments they should be given. For example: Police are the ones who decides which person has committed grievous crimes and that the person should be arrested or not. They also decide on enforcing specific laws, examine detailed crimes, investigate crime scene locations and search criminals and victims. Prosecutors are the ones to file charges against someone with complaints. They are the ones to make an official decision about a problem or dispute. They look for a formal accusation of a serious before presenting to the grand jury. And they have the authority for reducing charges for someone. Judges or magistrates are the one to set up bails and state of affairs to release a prisoner. They accept pleas, determine criminal behavior, release paroles, enforce sentences and withdraw probation. Correctional Officials are securities who maintain protection and precautions within one institution or in prison for staffs’ and prisoners’ health and safety. They are also authorized to punish for penalizing infringements. Paroling authorities are the ones to determine the dates and conditions for paroles and invalidate paroles.
Citations: “How the Criminal Justice System Works; How Discretion Is Exercised in the Criminal Justice System” Roscoe Pound, "Discretion, dispensation and mitigation: The problem of the individual special case," New York University Law Review (1960) 35:925, 926