political science 2500 words essay

anguna65
timer Asked: Jan 15th, 2022

Question Description

looking for help from a tutor who can follow instructions more carefully. Attached below are the requirements

Unformatted Attachment Preview

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY Summative Assessment Form CRIM10421 Foundations of Criminal Justice Assessment Type (e.g., essay, exam, homework, other) Case analysis Percentage (%) counting towards the overall module mark 100% Assignment Deadline (where appropriate) 16:00 on 17/01/2022 Word Limit 2500 words The return date of any individual feedback (+15 work days, not including vacation or exam periods) 15:00 on 21/02/2022 Details of assessment: You are asked to produce a critical analysis of ONE of the four fictional Crown Court cases set out below. In your critical analysis, you must focus on TWO of the following topics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The police Suspects’ rights The Crown Prosecution Service The court system Sentencing Victims Prison Probation You are being assessed on how you apply the knowledge you have gained on the course to explain the wider relevance of the case rather than just describing it. It is important that your analysis is grounded in the facts of the case, but you can use it to springboard into a wider discussion of your chosen topics. You are required to provide the facts of the case at the start of your analysis, but this will not contribute towards the word limit. Please choose ONE of the following cases to analyse: Case 1 On 26 February 2021, a 26-year-old white woman was arrested on suspicion of shoplifting contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The suspect was apprehended by security guards after being caught with £2,200 worth of items from Selfridges. The suspect was arrested by police and taken to the police station. Being known to the police as a dependent drug user and having been arrested for a ‘trigger offence’, the custody officer requested a clinical examination of the suspect and submitted her for a drug test. The suspect tested positive for heroin. The suspect chose not to receive legal advice and was subsequently interviewed by police. The suspect admitted the offence during the interview. Bail was denied as there were reasonable grounds to believe the suspect would offend while on bail. At her first hearing in the magistrates’ court, the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence. Given the value of the goods stolen, the case was sent to the Crown Court for sentencing. In preparing the pre-sentence report, the probation officer highlighted the following aggravating factors: the defendant had previous convictions for shoplifting and was stealing goods to order. Mitigating factors included: the defendant was a primary carer for her dependent father who was suffering a long-term illness and had demonstrated her intentions to address her drug addiction. In accordance with the sentencing guidelines, the judge determined there to be medium culpability of the defendant, as there was some degree of planning involved, and Category 1 harm given the value of the goods stolen. Taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the reduction in sentence for the guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, the defendant was sentenced to a medium level community order under the supervision of the National Probation Service. The defendant is required to undertake 100 hours of unpaid work and attend a drug treatment programme to address her drug addiction. Case 2 On 16 November 2021, a 52-year-old white man was arrested by police on suspicion of rape contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The claimant, a known sex worker, reported to the police that she had been raped by the suspect during an encounter in which penetrative sex was not agreed. The alleged offence occurred a month prior to it being reported to the police but the claimant asserted that she was fearful of reporting it for fear of incrimination. During police questioning, the suspect denied all allegations and asserted that the sex had been consensual. At the time of reporting the offence, a witness statement was taken from the victim but the opportunity to submit a victim personal statement was not offered. The CPS deemed the case to satisfy the full code test and proceeded with the prosecution. The defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on bail until his Crown Court trial. During the trial, the prosecution explained that the defendant was well-known among sex workers in the area as having a reputation for being short-tempered and demanding during encounters. The defence statement included the fact that the claimant had accused another client of sexual assault in the past, in which the suspect was not prosecuted by the CPS due to lack of available evidence. In cross-examining the claimant, the defence claimed that the act of rape is incompatible with the nature of the profession of sex work, with all encounters by default consensual. The claimant was visibly distressed during the trial. After considering the evidence, the jury found the defendant not guilty by a split verdict of 11:1. Case 3 On 9 December 2020, a 28-year-old mixed race man was arrested on suspicion of murder after he reported to police that he had stabbed his wife after she had become violent during an argument in the family home. During police questioning, the suspect admitted to stabbing his wife but maintained that he did so out of self-defence following a long history of physical and psychological abuse inflicted upon him by the victim. The suspect claimed that he had abusive text messages from his wife to support this claim. Mobile phone data of both the suspect and the victim were analysed by police. After submitting a plea of not guilty, bail was denied for the defendant’s own protection and he was remanded in custody until his trial, which was held on 6 February 2021. During the trial, it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to disclose to the defence copies of text messages from the victim to the defendant that were indicative of an abusive relationship and which corroborated the defence statement. The trial was adjourned. At the re-trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The judge determined the defendant’s culpability to be low. Taking into account the history of abuse towards the offender by the victim, the lack of premeditation and the defendant’s exemplary character, the judge sentenced the defendant to a 12month custodial sentence. Case 4 On 1 January 2021, a 19-year-old black man was stopped and searched by police under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on suspicion that he was in possession of drugs. No drugs were found during the search, but the suspect was found to be in possession of a knife. The suspect was arrested by police on suspicion of possessing an article with blade in a public place contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The suspect was questioned by police at the scene of the arrest but refused to answer. During the police interview at the station, the suspect provided ‘no comment’ responses. The CPS determined that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and that it was in the public interest to do so. The suspect was denied bail as it was believed he would fail to appear in court. The suspect was detained in police custody overnight before presenting for his first hearing at the magistrates’ court. The defendant pleaded not guilty and, following the allocation procedure, elected trial at the Crown Court. Conditional bail was granted with the defendant required to live at his parents’ address. During the first day of the trial, the defendant claimed that he was in fact holding the knife for a friend. The prosecution asked the suspect why he failed to mention this during police questioning. After the prosecution had finished presenting their evidence, the defendant changed his plea to guilty. As this was his second offence for possession of a knife, the judge was required to impose a six-month custodial sentence. Format The Department of Criminology requires students to submit all assessed coursework and dissertations in word-processed electronic format. Work submitted by students for assessment will be checked for plagiarism or other forms of academic malpractice. TurnitinUK is the plagiarism detection service used by the University. All coursework is marked anonymously. Your name MUST NOT appear on the work; however, your Student ID number MUST be on the top of each page of the essay. If you have been provided with a front cover for your submission by your department, you MUST use that. Font Size: 12 Point Font Type: Arial or equivalent Line Spacing: 1.5 Left and right hand margins: 2.54cm Top and bottom margins: 2.54cm Referencing Your coursework should clearly distinguish between your original words and ideas, and those of others. When referring to the work of others, whether in books, journals, or any other source (including the internet), it is essential that you make this clear by acknowledging your source and referencing correctly. Failure to reference correctly will lose you marks and may constitute plagiarism or collusion. Indirect quotations as well as direct quotations must be referenced. You should make use of an appropriate referencing system to attribute the work of others in your coursework. The Department of Criminology employs and expects the Harvard referencing system to be used in each of its course units. This is a mandatory requirement and other referencing systems (OSCOLA, Vancouver) etc, will not be acceptable. Full details of the Harvard system can be found here: http://subjects.library.manchester.ac.uk/referencing/referencing-harvard Please also see the library’s ‘my learning essentials’ resources relating to referencing here: https://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/using-the-library/students/training-and-skillssupport/my-learning-essentials/ and also under the ‘study skills’ section in the lefthand men of all Blackboard course unit pages . University Policy on Plagiarism and Collusion All work submitted by you must be your own. Plagiarism is the theft or use of someone else’s work without proper acknowledgment, presenting the material as if it were your own. The University regards plagiarism as a serious academic offence, equated with cheating in examinations, and the consequences are severe. It is important that all students familiarise themselves with the rules and regulations regarding plagiarism and collusion. Understanding these rules will help you to avoid plagiarism, and to maintain the quality of your academic work. The University of Manchester’s policies on plagiarism, collusion, and other academic malpractice can be found at http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=639 Information on how to avoid plagiarism can be found here: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/learning-objects/mle/avoidingplagiarism/story_html5.html Individual support is also available for students concerned with avoiding plagiarism and can be accessed via your academic advisor or course convenors. Your coursework will be submitted via Turnitin, which uses plagiarism detection software to produce a report on the similarity of your work to other sources. Instances where plagiarism is suspected, will be investigated. Students who are found to have plagiarised will be penalised. In proven cases, the penalty may extend to degree failure, temporary suspension or expulsion from further study. Note that any finding of malpractice will be entered on your academic record, and may have professional consequences, including refusal of entry into the legal profession by relevant regulatory bodies. Word limit Students should declare the word count in their assessed work. Markers may check the accuracy of your stated word count. Footnotes are NOT included in the word count. Footnotes should only be used for referencing purposes and footnotes containing any additional information or discussion will not be read. The word count does NOT include the title of the piece (or question itself), bibliography or any appendices. It DOES include subtitles, unless they are required by the assignment. The following penalties will apply if your work exceeds the limits set out above: i. *if the work is no more than 10% over the specified word limit, then 5 marks may be deducted from the mark awarded; ii. if the work is more than 10% but no more than 25% over the specified word limit, then 20 marks will be deducted from the mark awarded; iii. if the work is more than 25% but no more than 50% over the specified word limit, then 50 marks will be deducted from the mark awarded; iv. if the work is more than 50% over the specified word limit, then the work will not be marked and a mark of zero will be recorded. *Penalty may be waived where the limit is exceeded by a trivial amount. There will be no deduction of marks or other penalties where the coursework does not meet the maximum word length. However, it is important to remember that failing to provide sufficient material, producing material that lacks focus or including material that is irrelevant will probably result in a lower mark on the basis of the lack of academic merit of the work submitted. Coursework Deadlines All coursework must be submitted before the time set on the specified date provided with the final coursework questions. Failure to submit by this date and time (or within a deadline set for a DASS extension or extension awarded by the department) will result in a penalty for late submission. Students who do not submit on time due to unforeseen or unpreventable circumstances must complete a mitigating circumstances form and supply relevant supporting evidence to be considered by the Department of Criminology Mitigating Circumstances Panel. Coursework submission will be managed via the Blackboard page for your module. Submission details will be displayed for you on the Blackboard page for the module in the ‘Assessment’ tab on the left of the page. All coursework must be submitted electronically. Work submitted after the deadline must also be submitted electronically. Students can view their submission date and time on this page also. Please note that the deadline represents the last time that a piece of work can be submitted, and not a target. You are advised to plan ahead and submit work well in advance of the deadline. This will help to ensure that any last minute delays do not result in late submission. The department of Criminology has a strict policy and clear procedures for mitigating circumstances which prevent the submission of coursework on time. Allowances will be given for acceptable extenuating circumstances and in such cases penalties for late submission will not be applied. You should plan your work so that minor delays do not prevent submission on time. In all cases, you should ensure that you make regular backup copies of all coursework in progress. Note that computer and technical difficulties are NOT regarded as sufficient mitigating circumstances. Similarly, delays caused by the online submission system being slow due to increased usage close to deadlines set are NOT considered mitigating circumstances. Extensions If a student has foreseeable circumstances that prevent submission of a piece of coursework by the deadline, they can request an extension using the Extension Request Form found via Blackboard Programme pages or in a hard copy format from the Teaching, Learning and Student Experience Office (TLSEO) in the Williamson Building. Any extension permitted will be of one or two weeks in length. Any extension further to this can be granted only in exceptional circumstances by the Exams and Assessments Officer. Students submitting an Extension Request Form must do so no later than 24 hours before the original submission deadline. Where circumstances prevent submission which was not foreseen or occurred too close to the deadline to request an extension, a penalty will be applied to the mark for the assignment which can then be appealed on the basis of mitigating circumstances as outlined above. Penalties for late submission If you submit coursework after the original published deadline without an approved extension, the following penalties will apply: Work submitted Marks deducted Within 24 hours of the submission deadline 10 Within 48 hours of the submission deadline 20 Within 72 hours of the submission deadline 30 Within 4 days of the submission deadline 40 Within 5 days of the submission deadline 50 Within 6 days of the submission deadline 60 Within 7 days of the submission deadline 70 Within 8 days of the submission deadline 80 Within 9 days of the submission deadline 90 Within 10 days of the submission deadline Mark of zero Any student who submits work (including the dissertation) at 1 second past a deadline or later will, therefore, be subject to a penalty for late submission. There are no discretionary periods or periods of grace therefore, any work submitted at any time within the first 24 hours following the published submission deadline will receive a penalty of 10% of the maximum amount of marks available. Any work submitted at any time between 24 hours and up to 48 hours late will receive a deduction of 20% of the marks available, and so on, at the rate of an additional 10% of available marks deducted per 24 hours, until the assignment is submitted or no marks remain. The Policy relates to calendar days, so includes weekends and weekdays. The policy of submission of work for summative assessment on taught programmes, which includes the late submission policy, can be found at the following link: http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=29825 This guidance relates to first attempts only. Students who submit referral (also known as resits as a second attempt) assignments after the deadline will be automatically subject to a mark of zero. There is no sliding scale in operations for resits/referrals. Work submitted more than 9 calendar days late If work is submitted more than 9 but less than 10 calendar days late this is considered as a late submission and the penalty will be applied that results in the mark being reduced to zero. The work should still be marked and feedback given. If the work is submitted more than 10 calendar days late, then it is considered as a non-submission and a mark of zero applied. Marking Marks and feedback are scheduled to be available on Blackboard within 15 working days of the submission deadlines. Department of Criminology Assessment Criteria The department of Criminology uses a variety of assessment methods, but all assessments taken at the same level are marked on the same criteria. Marking criteria for your level and programme can be found below and on your Blackboard Programme pages; they should be used when reflecting on feedback given and prior to completing assessments. The following conventions will be used for the assessment of Level 2 & 3 course units: Examination marks are graded in this way, with 40% representing a pass, and seminar takers generally adopt a similar pattern for the marking of essays handed in for non-assessed work. Other forms of assessment (coursework, reports, dissertations etc.) will be marked on a similar scale but different assessment types will have different demands which will be reflected in their marking. 0-9% (step-marked at 0, 5) Answer irrelevant. 10-19% (step-marked at 15) Answer largely irrelevant but displays some knowledge, though muddled understanding, of general subject. 20-29% (step-marked at 25) Answer largely irrelevant but displays some understanding of general subject. Compensation for undergraduates applies to marks between 30 and 39: 30-39% (step-marked at 30, 32, 35, 38) Candidate identifies a number of relevant issues but fails to show a grasp of relevant concepts and displays (whether explicitly or implicitly) major gaps in knowledge and/or understanding. 40-49% (step-marked at 42, 45, 48) Candidate is able to identify some of the key issues but shows only a partial grasp of the relevant concepts and fails to develop or illustrate points. Weak presentation. 50-59% (step-marked at 52, 55, 58) Candidate shows ability to identify many of the key issues and some ability to argue logically and organise answer. Answer demonstrates a knowledge of the material provided in the basic texts/lecture notes but without much evidence of critical thought or wider reading in, or appreciation of, the subject. 60-69% (step-marked at 62, 65, 68) Candidate shows ability to identify the key issues, demonstrates a good grasp of the relevant concepts and is able to argue logically and organise the answer well. Answer demonstrates good powers of critical thought, provides a good use of examples to illustrate points and justify arguments, and displays evidence of reading in, and appreciation of, the subject. 70-100% (step-marked at 75, 80, 85, 90,95, 100) Candidate shows ability to identify the key issues, demonstrates an excellent grasp of the relevant concepts and is able to argue logically and organise the answer well. Answer demonstrates excellent analytical ability and very good powers of critical thought. Superior understanding is shown by good use of examples to illustrate points and to justify arguments. Evidence of wide reading in, and appreciation of, the subject is shown. Within the First Class band, all individual marks must be given at one of the following ‘steps’: First: 75% / Clear First: 80% / Good First: 85% / Excellent First: 90%
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors