who has discretion in the criminal justice system
Discretion Discretion has the meaning of acting on one's own authority and judgement. In law, discretion as to legal rulings, such as whether evidence is excluded at a trial, may be exercised by a judge. Some view discretion negatively, while some view it positively. Discretion exists at all levels of law enforcement and in many types of front-line bureaucrats. Discretion has been called "the Art of suiting action to particular circumstances" (Lord Scarman). Those in a position of power are most often able to exercise discretion as to how they will apply or exercise that power. The ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may be presupposed. [1]
Public-order crime In criminology, public-order crime is defined by Siegel (2004) as "crime which involves acts that interfere with the operations of society is the ability of people to function efficiently", i.e., it is behaviour that has been labelled criminal because it is contrary to shared norms, social values, and customs. Robertson (1989:123) maintains a crime is nothing more than "an act that contravenes a law". Generally speaking, deviancy is criminalized when it is too disruptive and has proved uncontrollable through informal sanctions.