In the criminal justice system, stakeholders are those impacted by the criminal justice system. Internal stakeholders are the criminal justice itself whereas the external stakeholders are the criminal justice system affects and serves. It is therefore imperative to identify all these stakeholders since they are vital to the criminal justice system.
Internal Stakeholders
Internal stakeholders incorporate cops, judges, probation officers, correctional officers, parole officers, legal counselors, court staff, and different people. The individuals who are in charge of authorizing the law and the understanding of the law are part of the criminal justice system internally. Additionally, the individuals who are associated with violations and indicted could likewise be viewed as internal stakeholders of the criminal justice system ( Travis & Edwards, 2015) . Every one of these stakeholders is associated with one another and influences one another. To appropriately prevent wrongdoing, arrest and treat offenders, these stakeholders should each carry out their responsibilities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
External Stakeholders
External stakeholders involve the chosen officials, the media, bunches who serve casualties of crime, organizations, families, schools, and society as well. When somebody is the casualty of a crime, they are affected. The media is additionally affected when providing details regarding a crime. The individuals who get the media's announcing of wrongdoing are affected too. Somehow everybody is influenced by the criminal justice system. From the laws that are formulated to the treatment of offenders, society is shaped.
How courts and the community are likely to reduce the prison population
Rehabilitation is the most effective form of reducing prison populations. Rehabilitation brings a valuable belief that offenders cannot be punished but can be saved. The ideal reveals a strong message that the state can assist those that have fallen short of behavior standards. Rehabilitation considers both the victim and the society as it tries every way to transform the offender and prevent him or her from offending again (Deegan, 2008).
Mandatory sentences help in the elimination of personal bias. People have different opinions regarding some subjects. This applies to the justice system too. The mandatory sentences, therefore, help in developing a justice standard which is equally applied to offenders that have been charged with having committed the same crime. Mandatory sentences also eliminate the factor of sympathy in litigations. Even though everyone deserves to be given a second chance, having sentences that are too lenient would look like the offenders get away with offenses that they commit (Schulhofer, 2013). The disadvantage with the mandatory sentences is that they might unfairly target some groups like the minority. The African American communities like drugs mostly commit some crimes and their mandatory sentences affect this group. I think mandatory sentences are effective because they reduce crime. Research shows that there was a significant reduction in crime when they were first used.
Factual impossibility applies to cases where offenders do not complete their intended robbery because of known reasons. In this scenario, the unknown suspect fails to commit robbery because he found the door locked. If the door could have been open, he could have completed his intended crime The case could be termed as factual because he introduced himself to the police using a false name hence provoking the police to search in the suspect’s car when the police to discover that he had a loaded handgun. Although carrying a loaded gun doesn’t mean that the suspect was going to commit any crime, what is not clear to us is whether he had it when he was trying to open the door or when he rushed to the window (Schulhofer, 2013). Besides the handgun, he was found with gloves, sunglasses, a blue knit stocking cap, and a black eye patch. On top of this, he had a scanner which turned to metropolis uniform patrol transmissions when he attempted to enter into the bank. All this evidence could prove that the suspect was ready to commit a crime or gather information which could be used to plan for a robbery. Hence he could be charged with attempted robbery
Factual impossibility can be used against the defendant in the first scenario. This type of impossibility occurs when the defendant fails to complete his intended crime and sought to negate the actus reus. As stated, the defendant did not commit his intended robbery, unlike other crimes that were committed at different banks in the metropolis ( Travis & Edwards, 2015) . The defense is therefore valid because he was arrested under questionable circumstances. First, he had his face covered when he was approaching the bank; he had a loaded handgun, sunglasses as well as wearing glasses. When he realized that the bank had locked the door, he decided to use the window.
Impossibility defense could only be used as a criminal defense against those offenders who have been accused of attempted crimes. Both legal impossibility and factual impossibility can be used as defense. Factual impossibility can be applied in the first scenario because the closure of the bank deprived the suspect the opportunity to commit robbery ( Travis & Edwards, 2015) . Factual impossibility argues that a criminal act could not have been completed because of some prevailing circumstances. The suspect, in this case, could still be charged with attempted robbery because of the statutes he possesses such as a handgun and a scanner.
References
Deegan, P. E. (2008). Recovery: The lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychosocial rehabilitation journal , 11 (4), 11.
Schulhofer, S. J. (2013). Rethinking mandatory minimums. Wake Forest l. rev. , 28 , 199.
Travis III, L. F., & Edwards, B. D. (2015). Introduction to criminal justice . Routledge.
