Introduction
The criminal justice system refers to the agencies and practices responsible for controlling crime and imposing penalties on law violators. The primary reason for founding the system is to sustain social control, tone down crime, deter, and sanction persons considered to have broken the law. According to Schmalleger (2011), law refers to regulations that are made obligatory through a set of institutions. In this paper, the author will focus on law and criminal justice system by analyzing the case of Dale and Mike Parak.
Dale and Mike Parak’s Case
Defining Justice
From this author’s personal point of view, justice is the legal act or procedure by which fair judgment is passed and criminals or law violators charged for their acts. Formally, the concept is defined as the proper administration of law. To this end, all people receive fair and equal treatment under the set regulations. However, debate still exists regarding the correct definition of law. The main factor associated with the dispute is varied perspectives. According social contract thinkers, for example, the concept of justice is based on mutual agreement between all parties concerned. On their part, utilitarian scholars argue that the concept is an action or decision that has the best consequences (Burns, 2007).
Pepinsky’s perspective on justice
Other scholars, such as Pepinsky (2006), believe that justice can be whatever one wants it to be. However, fairness is realized through a diverse community of interest. In addition, Pepinsky (2006) is of the view that justice should be based on ethics. It should also be anchored on one’s responsibility to identify their commitment to fairness.
Views on whether justice was served
An analysis of the case in light of the different perspectives of impartiality reveals that justice was served on Dale and not on Mike Parak. The primary reason for this is because the sentence was not passed to ensure fairness for the victim. The ruling was based on the reason of law. The ‘reason’ states that no person should decide when to end another individual’s life. The accused broke this rule. Sentencing Dale for capital punishment, which is the legal sentence for 1st degree murder, was lack of justice for the accused (Banks, 2007).
Definition of the Charge against Dale from the Perspective of the State and the Prosecutor
The prosecution would define the charge against Dale as manslaughter. An analysis of the circumstances that prompted Dale to end his brother’s life reveals that his actions do not meet all the components of 1st degree murder. The criterion met by his deeds was unlawful killing of a human being. The reason is that Dale killed his brother without justification or valid excuse. However, there was no malice aforethought. The reason is that Dale’s action to shoot his brother was not a planned thing (Loveless, 2008).
Dale’s Sentence was Just
According the definition of justice, the sentence was just. Dale’s reason for killing Mike does not qualify as first or second-degree murder. As a result, imposing a severe punishment would be unfair to the accused. The case is similar to a crime of passion. The reason is that the initial trigger for ending life was love and pain caused by seeing the other person suffer. The case would have been justified as first degree murder under crime of passion if the motive was influenced by anger or jealousy. Such criteria were met in the infamous Simpson’s case (Loveless, 2008).
Charging Dale from the Perspective of the Prosecutor
If I were the prosecutor, I would have found it just and right to charge Dale Parak. However, the charge would be manslaughter and not first-degree murder. The primary reason for charging Dale would be that it is not ‘justifiable or excusable’ to determine when one should die (Banks, 2013).
Sentencing Dale as the Judge
If I were the judge, I would have sentenced Dale to jail for between three and five years. The reason is that Dale’s actions were not based on negligence or desire to cause harm to his brother. Dale and Mark loved each other. As a result, the two thought they were doing each other a favor by committing suicide (LaFave, 2010).
Conclusion
The criminal justice system aims at reducing and deterring crime by punishing offenders. In addition, it works to ensure that victims are treated fairly. For centuries, justice has remained a highly emotive topic. In spite of the fact that cases are taken to the courts and rulings made, questions arise on whether justice was served or not. Dale and Mike Parak’s scenario acts as an example of such cases. To ensure impartiality, the decisions made by the judges should be based on ethics and moral values.
References
Banks, C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Burns, R. (2007). The criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
LaFave, W. (2010). Principles of criminal law. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
Loveless, J. (2008). Criminal law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pepinsky, H. (2006). Peacemaking: Reflections of a radical criminologist. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.