After a close analysis of the inquisitorial and adversarial system of justice l came to the conclusion that the systems have provided an interesting comparative insights. Those attempts reveal important contemporary goals of criminal procedure.
Since due process is how we define the order and the correct way of doing things, this is how it applies: In the Terry versus Ohio case, Terry believe that officers should have probable cause before the officer was able to stop and frisk individuals. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers have the right to stop and frisk without probable cause, meaning the process McFadden used was correct. On the other hand, in Miranda versus Arizona, Miranda had not been informed of his right to remain silent before giving his confession of committing the crimes he had been accused of. In turn his confession was not valid. If the officers had used the correct process and made Miranda aware of his right to remain silent, his confession could have been used in trial.
Courts have determined that police are allotted broad discretion as to the techniques and tactics they are allowed to engage in when interrogating a suspect, with the exception of threats of violence and promises of leniency. However, an increasingly prevalent problem arises that the courts have yet to respond to by consensus, and that is the problem of when non-public details that become a part of a suspect’s confession originate from the interrogating detectives and not the suspect themselves. The current system fails to apply important developments in the management of errors and quality control that results in miscarriages of justice. Wrongful convictions remains one of the most serious miscarriages of justice, violating the most fundamental
A criminal defendant who is found to have been legally insane when he or she commited a crime may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In some cases, the defendant may be found guilty but sentenced to a less severe punishment due to a mental impairment. In states that allow the insanity defense , defendants must prove to the court that they did not understand what they were doing, failed to know right from wrong, acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors. It is very difficult to prove that insanity exits and there are cases where people are used for insanity that are really not insane. I believe that pleading insanity should be abolished.
In situations where the victim does not want to participate, prosecutors may simply use factual evidence and witness testimony in order to get a conviction (Corsilles, 1994). However, in other cases where there is not enough evidence, victims may have to be subpoenaed in order to provide the courts with enough information for the prosecution to continue with the charges. The final treatment of cases under this policy regards the option of dropping a case. Although not common, there are some cases in which the victim and the aggressor choose to come to terms and the victim wants the charges to be dropped. In these cases, there is a
In the majority of criminal cases, the eyewitness is asked to provide information about what occurred at the crime they saw, and this information is stored in conscious recall, explicit memory. The major problem with recalling from explicit memory is that humans don’t remember every exactly, they remember a general idea of the scene they are reporting. When recalling information, the eye witness can mistake color, shapes, objects, people, and many other aspects. A national litigation and public policy organization called The Innocent Project, works to exonerate innocent convicts who were unjustly convicted due to lack of DNA evidence testing and eyewitness misidentification. They claim that the majority of wrongly convicted people is due to eyewitness
In their article, "Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology" Brian Bornstein and Edie Greene reveal that the court "requires ordinary citizens who lack legal training to hear evidence, make sense of conflicting facts, and apply legal rules to reach a verdict" (Bornstein and Greene 63). Jury decision making poses a problem because ordinary people are required to sort evidence and reach a verdict, which all jurors may not agree with. The reasons of how a judge interprets the Constitution and a jury making the final verdict in a case add to the cause of why the courts are the most problematic component in the criminal justice
During the course of a criminal trial, adversaries are tasked with convincing the judge or jury to believe their perspective on the case. Justice is pursued, but not always achieved. Justice in a criminal trial is achieved when the innocent is found innocent and the guilty is found guilty. The adversarial system tasks the judge with choosing the most persuasive argument. This is not justice, but a process of persuasion and wit.
INTRODUCTION IN these days when it is impossible to know everything, but becomes necessary for success in any avocation to know something of everything and everything of something, the expert is more and more called upon as a witness both in civil and criminal cases. In these times of specialists, their services are often needed to aid the jury in their investigations of questions of fact relating to subjects with which the ordinary man is not acquainted. Cross-examination is an art form only - occasionally practiced by prosecutors, who instead necessarily focus much of their efforts on direct examination. This is brought on by the prosecution bearing the burden of proof and the simple realities of many criminal trials where the defense may
The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose
The Exclusionary Rule: Enforcing the Fourth Amendment This section begins by explaining that in 1914, the court reexamined their previous ruling as to whether or not one could submit evidence to a court that had been illegally seized (Ingram, 2009). One specific case that the textbook references in relation to this is the case of Weeks v. the United States. In this particular case, the police had seized evidence that they had taken from the defendant’s residence without a proper search warrant. This evidence was then used against the defendant in court and he was convicted as a result.
D. Ohio’s Evid. R. 403 Unlike its federal counterpart, the Ohio evidentiary rule 403 is separated into two sections: (a) mandatory exclusion and (b) discretionary exclusion. Even relevant evidence “is not admissible” when the probative value is substantially outweighed by evidence that (i) is unfairly prejudicial, (ii) confuses the issues, or (iii) misleads the jury. This clear language promulgated by the Ohio rule-makers establishes greater protections for defendants, and strips trial courts of their discretion in certain evidentiary matters.