The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth.
High rates of social disorganization and poverty levels can cause crime rates to increase as well. No economic opportunities in a community can factor into high crime rates. Drug use and gangs can also factor into this. Other factors may include a lack of family support and a poor education system.
Being just in the American criminal justice system is a topic that is highly debated. Some believe the system is just, while others believe it is a flawed. The truth however, is that humans are not always right. God is the only who can practice justice in complete perfection, because humans are not perfect. Although many people in the American criminal justice system have good intentions, sadly that does not necessarily mean they are always just. The American criminal justice system tries to be truly just and has been before, but humans are not perfect and cannot always be truly just.
Within the criminal justice system, there are two competing models: the crime control model and the due process model. These two models were constructed by Robert Packer and each represents a particular school of thought. In managing crime, there is the individual i.e. the suspect and there is the society. The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice.
There comes a time in the criminal justice system where a law that was written to protect us will be challenged through a court case. That case will eventually make history and will become a reference in future cases with similar dilemmas. In 1983, one particular case met the criteria (Arizona vs. Youngblood). In this case, Larry Youngblood was convicted by a jury in Arizona of child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnapping of a ten-year-old boy. Both a criminologist for the State and an expert witness for the defendant testified as to what they believed the results were from the tests that were performed on the samples shortly after they were collected, they also commented on later tests performed on the samples from the boy’s clothing
The United States is distinguished for having one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world. We like to say that “Justice is blind,” but justice is decided among people, and people are not perfect or impartial. When convicted of a crime, a person is
The criminal justice system faces multiple accusations for not standing up to the “innocent until proven guilty” standards. While the legal system has fought to keep this statement true, the challenges still exist. One of these is a proper trial that is both unbiased and without error. The setting for a proper trial includes an impartial jury selection to follow the proper procedures of the courtroom. Selection of the jury is an important task and serving on a jury is considered by the United States as the civic duty of the community.
Currently in the United States there are 2 million incarcerated people. America has a wrongful conviction rate of 1 percent which translates to about 20,000 innocent people being punished for crimes they didn’t do. On January 13, 1999, Adnan Syed was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee in Baltimore, Maryland. Nobody is completely positive what happened that day or who killed Hae. Most of the suspected events that occurred that day come from the testimony of Jay Wilds, one of Adnan’s friends, who claims to be a witness of the crime and says Adnan is the murderer. During Adnan’s trial, there were many flaws that could’ve contributed to an unfair trial such as a bias jury, an attorney who made mistakes, and the failure to investigate other murder
The United States criminal justice system is riddled with cases of many varieties. Some have obvious outcomes while others warrant more detailed analysis. However, some cases go beyond the court into other courts, where they are decided, such as Jackson versus Hobbs in 2012. The courts try to lighten the load of cases they have by offering plea bargaining, an agreement among a defendant and a prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty to a charge that is less severe than what he or she is initially charged for in the hopes that clemency will be administered. Sometimes, however, people accused of a crime are completely innocent, and it is not until technology is released, such as DNA testing, decades later that these people are proved to
Countless people are getting placed in the criminal justice system on meager charges. Then, the system offers them “Legal Misrepresentation,” even though Gideon v. Wainwright (Alexander, 2012, p. 85) stated that they are entitled to an attorney if they are accused of a serious crime and indigent. Yet, public defendant attorneys lack resources and are overburdened with a substantial caseload that they cannot give defendants suitable representation. Subsequently, these accused people are forced into a plea deal to offset spending the mandatory maximum sentences in prison.
Mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which were introduced about three decades or so ago, allow judges to issue a minimum prison sentence at the discretion of the prosecutor, who determines the charges that are placed against a defendant. These laws, as outlined by the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation (n.d), limit the power of the judges to make a judgment on the punishment that can be given to a defendant. The meaning being that mandatory minimums transfer the power to give sentences from the judges to the prosecutors, a scenario that is worsened by the fact that some prosecutors misuse this power. As such, mandatory minimum sentences should be repealed, particularly for the gun and drug-based offenses.
The PBS film “Policing the Police” brings an insider view into the Newark Police Department. As denoted in the documentary, Newark is one of the most violent cities in America with crime rates nine times higher than New York City’s. The Department of Justice investigated multiple cities including Newark and found that reform was a necessity: 75 percent of the time the Newark Police Department stopped people without legal justification. This is evidenced in the film itself through Jelani Cobb’s experiences; many stops he witnesses are done so based on hunches and use excessive force rather than the cops having reasonable suspicion. In my opinion, the Newark PD as portrayed in this documentary desperately requires reform.
Forty years have gone by and I think it’s finally time we acknowledge the inconvenient truth; Capital punishment is not a fair means of punishment and disproportionately affects minorities.
When comparing and contrasting COMPSTAT and Community Policing one will find that both are quite similar in purpose, yet somewhat different in how information is obtained and who is accountable for results. COMPSTAT is a statistics driven model of policing. The data that is collected by law enforcement agencies is utilized to allocate resources to specific problems in an effort to address them quickly. This is not much different than intelligence led policing, which is becoming the latest trend within law enforcement. Agencies that utilize the COMPSTAT model hold their commanders accountable for statistical data showing no change or an uptick in crime in a specifically identified hotspot. Some argue that the use of COMPSTAT encourages
The case study of The Meredith Kercher case is the topic of discussion. The study involves principles related to international criminology and diverse perception on a case of varying judicial and legal implications. The case and the legal procedure of the Italy court highlight how Americans may be portrayed in high-profile cases.