Title: Organizational Effectiveness Essay Example

  • Category:
    Law
  • Document type:
    Assignment
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    3
  • Words:
    2176

Title: Organizational Effectiveness

Introduction:

Actus rea in the case of criminal negligence is an action or inaction which, in combination with a guilty mind, brings out criminal liability in common law based in criminal jurisdictions such as in the Canada, United Kingdom and United States. Mens rea means guilty mind. (Sayre, (1932).

Proof under criminal law involves defendant, an act forceful or hostile to a victim without his consent. This involves a touch, strike, moves or applying a force of a kind, by one person to another, directly or indirectly, with consent obtained through trickery or without consent at all constitutes a common assault. A person is thus entitled to use equal force in his defense against an attack. To justify self defense proof is needed without any reasonable doubt “corpus delicti rule” (Richard, 2005), there is need to explore and clarify the situation and determine veracity or lack of it. A defendant can not be guilty of man slaughter or murder unless he is proved to have acted with the intention to do grievous bodily harm or to kill (Kaveny, 2004).

There are certain legal criteria which should be met before an offence may be prosecuted. To be criminally liable, proof of the principles of liability is needed. These differ from the crime committed i.e. a crime of burglary is different from homicide (Wolfgang, 1990). These principles are: Principle of Actus Reus, Principle of Mens Rea, Principle of concurrence, Principle of causation and Principle of resulting harm.

Summary of the case

Actions presented in the case may be classified as acts of larceny or stealing:

  • A woman giving her kid fruits to eat from the shelf when she knows those items can’t be weighed to know their actual prices.

  • An elderly woman tearing stalks off a banana to reduce its weight hence pay less.

  • A male shopper removing stalks from tomatoes to reduce their overall value and price.

  • The women reading magazines at the waiting queue with no intentions of purchasing.

  • The woman eating and carrying home almonds from display counter.

These actions that shoppers engage themselves in are trickery that could constitute cheating the supermarket and saving on the money they would otherwise have to pay. The question in hand is whether these acts involve breaking of the law, whether we categorize them as shoplifting or larceny? And what legal procedures should be taken by the police and criminal justice system to bring these suspects to justice?

The Crime of larceny.

According to NSW Crimes Act 40/1900 re Larceny, Domestic Violence and Assault and Law enforcement powers and responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) LEPRA., larceny involves:

  • Asportation – this is defined as an act of moving an item with the intention of stealing it. For example, taking a vehicle from one location to another illegally.

  • Taking – this is the action of taking an item that belongs to another person, with the intention of stealing it permanently.

The Case study analysis.

From the above explanations we can now analyze whether the acts constitute a crime or not.

  • The woman who gives his kids fruits to eat has the intention of cheating by trickery or to steal.

  • The elderly woman act of reducing the overall weight of bananas is stealing by deception.

  • The man’s act of removing stalks from tomatoes is also stealing by deception.

  • Reading magazines on waiting queue and not actually buying is also an act of stealing by deception.

  • The woman carrying almonds form the display counter is actually stealing not tasting.

The acts reveal the precarious ways that people use to steal money, items, property from other individuals without their immediate permission.

Police roles in the instances

Once the cases have been reported, it’s upon the police to come in and investigate and apprehend the suspects or make the arrest. (White & Prone, 2010). The investigation should, however, be conducted in a just and fair manner in accordance with the law. According to Law and Enforcement Powers and Responsibility Act LEPRA 2002, a police’s action can be liable to charges of assault if:

    • There is a deliberate physical action that can be insinuated as harmful or violent to the suspect.

    • There is use of coercion to obtain information from the suspect hence undermining the basic human rights.

    • There is an act of provocation and molestation to the suspects against the law.

According to Law and Enforcement (Powers and Responsibility) Act LEPRA 2002, the following processes should be followed when a police wants to make an arrest:

  1. The police officer MUST inform the culprit that it is crime, if she/he refuses to comply.

  2. The officer should explain to the culprit the main reason for exercising the power of arrest. Should there be barriers in communication a qualified interpreter should be called upon (Cunneen, 2001).

  3. The officer should provide his name and the station he/ she works at. This rule out the implication of an imposter to the suspect.

  4. Identification should be shown to the suspect if the officer is in plain clothes.

The officer should caution the suspect in accordance to the Law and Enforcement Powers and Responsibility Act 2002 (LEPRA 2002), before making the arrest. To caution means to let the suspect know that he or she will be questioned, interrogated or interview. The answers therefrom will be recorded in an electronic format or on a tape. The interrogation should start in the following format:

“I am going to ask you some questions. You do not have to say or do anything if you do not want to. Do you understand that? We will record what you say or do. We can use this recording in court. Do you understand that?”

For any interview or interrogation of a suspect to be admissible in the court statement for the further prosecution, Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibility Act 2002 require the officer to follow the laid rules according to the books (White & Perrone, 2010).

Criminal justice system

Prosecution of the culprits or suspects is done by the criminal justice system. It was established to try such and demonstrate to the citizens that the laws of the land must be breached willingly for personal gratification. (White & Perrone, 2010).

The court act as interpreter of the laws, taking into account evidence obtained from both the prosecutor and the accused. The accused in the case study in question are the women reading the magazines, the old woman, the guy plucking tomatoes, the woman feeding her kid, who in one way or the other have robbed the management of the supermarket their dues i.e. money and commodities. The prosecutor is the police officer who arrested them and has presented the case to the court (White & Perrone, 2010).

The court processes require that the right procedures should be followed when the police officer exercises his power of arrest and during the interrogation process. Failure to this can lead the court to through out the case since due rights of the accused would have been denied. Coercing or forcing the suspect in any manner to obtain the evidence could lead to such a case being declared unsubstantial and the accused freed.

The court is the weighing machine for the land acting in such a manner that all are treated equally, i.e. both the accused and the prosecutor. In the eyes of the there is no superiority or inferiority depending on profession or class. Equality is a mandate for there to be justice in our court systems. This brings in the aspect that there is guarantee of impartiality in the judiciary and that justice is and will be done.

The court’s processes of making a sentence or the final decision are usually a boring and length procedure that must be carried as per the law. It follows that similar cases that have been tried before are relied on to come up with the sentence in the end. Should a case be a new one, the judges applies discretion to give justice to whoever is worth. (White & Perrone, 2010).

Some occasions arise where the courts do make mistakes and sentences the wrong person for the crime he or she has not committed. To avoid this kind of mistake from cropping up in the judiciary system, the court must verify police’s evidence and make sure they comply with the principle of fairness and equality.

The alternatives to court systems.

Our court systems are viewed as being too rigid and time consuming. There are alternatives available to entering court systems which can help both the defendant and plaintiffs iron out their differences and settle for certain agreement. These are:

  • Director’s intervention. Here the person in charge, i.e. director, manager, chief executive officer et cetera, can intervene to resolve the case at hand. In the case study, the management of the supermarket can intervene and resolve the case. The shoppers deceiving the supermarket can be asked to pay a sum equivalent to the amount they had intended to defraud the supermarket. Warning can be given to they that read magazine and actually purchasing to stop the behavior. This case can be settled outside the courts without involving lawyers and other expenses that will be inconvenient to all parties involved. There is therefore no need to invite the police to come in unless the suspects fight back (Black, 1979).

  • Community settlement. There exists leaders in our communities who take the duties of settling disputes and any disagreements whatsoever in our society. . In this case, the management of the supermarket can drag the shoppers to the leaders, who will weigh their actions and mete out the appropriate punishment for them. Also, this process is cost effective and both the accused and the accuser can come up with some kind of agreement with one another.

  • Arbitration. Some members on the panel of the arbitration body should be called upon to check the claims by the accuser and the evidence from the accused. They should then come up with a wise decision on who is right or wrong in the said incidents. This is very easy and cost less than hiring a lawyer or a counsel at the court. Yet justice is established. There is need to establish whether there is negligence on the part of management or its mere intention from the shoplifters to deceive by the panelist. Care should be taken to ensure that it is clearly understood by the vulnerable group in the society. This includes the elderly, the children and the mentally challenged. Justice should be sought irregardless (Ballantine, 1919).

Conclusions

The case study clearly depicts that some people are out there to defraud others. These actions in our context are criminally liable to be tried in the courts when they are done with the intention of stealing another person’s commodities by using tricks and deception. The act and the guilty mind in these cases involve criminal liability. The cases lead to actual harm to the supermarket and the principle of possession is evident here. The police are empowered by the law to come in and investigate such once a report is made. The law and enforcement powers and responsibilities act LEPRA 2002, requires a thorough investigation to be carried out to gather evidence. Procedure should be followed, however, to minimize chance of such cases being compromised with therefore not having substance to try. Caution should always be given when beginning an investigation. The arrest should be made according and the accused taken to court. The court has the mandate to give sentence following the previous decided cases. Justice should always be sought with equality in mind and laws followed. There exist alternatives to the court systems. These are arbitration, director’s intervention and community settlement

Bibliography

Bibliography

Garland, D, 2002, «Of Crimes and Criminals». The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 3rd

edition. Oxford University Press.

Kaveny, J., 2004, Inferring Intention from Foresight’ New York, NY publishers.

Michael, F., Calvin, D., & Jeremy, B., 2000, International human rights law group, Cambodia

defenders project, Washington DC, Cambodia UP.

Perri, H., Frank, K., & Lichtenwald, T., 2009 “When Worlds Collide: Criminal

Investigative Analysis, Forensic Psychology And the Timothy Masters Case,” Forensic

Examiner, 18:2 NCJ.

Savelsberg, D., Joachim, K., Lara, W., Cleveland, T., & Ryan, K.,2004, «Institutional

Environments and Scholarly Work: American Criminology, 1951-1993″. Social Forces82 (4):

1275–1302.

Sayre, M.,1992, Mens rea. Harvard Law Review, Harvard, Harvard university publishers 45,

974-1026

Schmolka, V., 2007, Principles to Guide Criminal Law Reform»«. Department of Justice,

Government of Canada. Retrived on 8th May 2011 from

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/roundtable/nov102/appendixb.html

Richard,H., Sharon, H., & Thomas F., 2005, Crime and Punishment in America. Volume 1. ,

Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, NY. 23-89.

Wolfgang, M., 1990, «Crime and Punishment in Renaissance Florence». Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University) 81 (3): 567–84.

Ballantine, G., 1999, Criminal responsibility of the insane and feeble-minded. Journal of the

American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 9, 485-499.

Black, J., 2007, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

Finkel, G., 2005, Commonsense justice: Jurors’ notions of the law. Cambridge: Harvard