Apologies: Not the Only Form to Fix Bias and Corruption Within the criminal justice system, officials abuse their power. The officials of the justice system have a duty to protect and perform their duties with unbiased decision making. The abuse of power jeopardizes people’s lives who are not able to sustain oneself and their families. Some people do not understand that poorer people find themselves in jail more and once a person is released, that person is subjected to return to jail for the amount of money owed to the state. There are many obstacles for the poor, especially those of color. People of color are treated unfairly in the justice system, from the arrest, the sentencing, and the release. The criminal justice system is supposed to be just but that is not the case. The criminal justice system allows for the police, public defenders, and judges to bend the laws and not be punished for their actions or that apologizes can fix the wrong that has been done. This paper will discuss the abuse of power from the justice system and the solutions to rectify the damages.
The Justice system seeks to prevent crimes and to capture those who have committed crimes. But what are the causes of crime, maybe poverty, or greed, or is sometimes caused by the system. Is the risk worth the reward and is reward the worth risking the punishment? Power and influence is threaded deeply into the Criminal Justice System. Are all offenders caught and processed with the same demeanor and given the same punishment? The system needs to be impartial to all offenders regardless of the offender’s social position, job or yearly income. The general punishment for most crimes is incarceration in most states with a difference in duration to adjust per each crime. This is the deterrent against crime. This is what should be keeping
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
Dewan, S. (2014). Article by Journalist Shaila Dewan (November 9, 2014) As Shaila Dewan stated in her article from the New York Times; “Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize”. The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire in recent months, amid a spate of negative press reports and growing outrage among civil rights advocates, libertarians and members of Congress who have raised serious questions about the fairness of the practice, which critics say runs without thinking or caring about the opinions, rights, or feelings of others over due process. (Nov. 9, 2014).
In the United States “civil forfeiture" is a legal procedure which might be brought during or after criminal accusations are recorded in the court. It is a court proceeding recorded against a property or against a person which allows law enforcement to take away cash and or property. Based on the article End of Forfeiture (2017), 87% of federal forfeitures were not criminals but civil, the government didn’t have to convict or charge anyone to take the property. Once the U.S. Lawyer's Office gets a referral from a seizing organization of a seized resource case, that office has 90 days to either document a civil legal case or incorporate the seized resource in a criminal arraignment and name it for criminal Forfeiture. On the off chance that a civil case is not documented within those 90 days, the CAFRA "capital punishment" will keep the United States from continuously recording a civil Forfeiture case. If the advantage is incorporated into a prosecution and the respondent is later vindicated or has a conviction turned around to offer, the property can't be surrendered. Thus, numerous U.S. prosecutors record a suspicious civil forfeiture activity and incorporate the property for criminal forfeiture in an arraignment (Weld, n.d, 2011.).
Criminal Justice Trends Paper CJA/484 December 16, 2013 Criminal Justice Trends Paper Introduction For the past 50 years, America’s criminal justice system has encountered several significant changes dealing with courts and policing. According to Marion and Oliver (2006), the historical Supreme Court rulings like Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona mold the way courts and law enforcement handle individuals charged with committing crimes. This paper will discuss the evolution of courts and law enforcement reflects the diverse and changing need for today’s population which is first importance, the urgency for cooperation and communication among criminal justice agencies and law enforcement within the country. Individuals must
I, Deputy Daniel Pruitt spoke to a Steve Craine who stated on 06/06/2017 he saw a small silver SUV on his property. Steve stated the SUV was pulling a red 1970's model truck bed as a trailer. Steve stated he saw a white male drving and a female passenger. Steve
In pursuit of the war on drugs, changes had been made to the nature of law enforcement and prosecution. Law enforcement have now been more empower with these new policies seem to have diminish civilians rights, such policies gave law enforcement power to violate third and fourth amendment. “Using general
On Monday August 08, 2016 I, Detective K. Holland #636 began reviewing this case file. The three listed suspects, Ramon Alvarado, Jose Blancas, and Hector Gatica were believed to be involved with burglarizing vehicles prior to their arrest. Since their arrest, victims had come forwards to report their vehicle was burglarized. Property belonging to Malinda Sims, (a Samsung cell phone), was returned to her by Officer Acosta. Sims also reported that $80-$100 was stolen from her vehicle. Officer Weaver advised that there was still electronic equipment inside the Dodge Avenger that was located at Brownwood Towing. A search warrant was sought for the Avenger, and it was signed by Judge Sam Moss. The search of the vehicle was occurred on 08/08/16
On 2-16-2016 at about 1524 hours I was dispatched to a recently seen stolen vehicle near 1204 E Main ST, Auburn/King/Wa. Enroute dispatch advised they were contacted by Kent PD Detectives and advised of a possible stolen vehicle, related to Kent Case #16-1786, near the listed location. The vehicle was reported as a silver 2007 Ford Fusion, WA/AQK6662. Kent PD also advised they believed a female by the name of Angelita Nielsen would be driving the vehicle. I arrived in the area and located the vehicle. The vehicle was parked, facing northbound, in a gas station stall occupied by one female. The female later verbally identified herself as Angelita Nielsen. Upon locating the vehicle I initiated my over head lights and conducted a "felony I contacted Kent Detectives who advised that they would be taking over the case for possession of stolen vehicle and they would be arriving in the area to take
Shadow immigration enforcement occurs when state or local police officers with no immigration enforcement authority exercise their regular police powers in a distorted way for the purpose of increasing federal immigration enforcement. Shadow enforcement typically involves the disproportionate targeting of vulnerable “foreign-seeming” populations for hyper-enforcement for reasons wholly independent of suspected involvement in criminal activity as defined by state or local
1. APPLICATION AND VIOLATIONS OF LAW: The Affiant hereby makes application to_______________________________ a judge of the Circuit/District Court for Metropolis for a Search and Seizure Warrant on the grounds that there is probable cause, the basis of which is set forth in the following affidavit which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, to believe that there is property subject to seizure under the laws of this State and more particularly in violation of the Criminal Law Article, specifically, the crimes of
Modern American CAF derives it’s roots from the policies used by police and prosecutors during the time of alcohol prohibition. Law enforcement during early 20th century would often use civil asset forfeiture against the cars, guns, money, and other property of the people who were busted smuggling liquor. Although alcohol prohibition died 80 years ago with the passage of the 21st and the repeal of the 18th amendments, the most common usage of CAF still lies within the realm of enforcing prohibition laws. Civil asset forfeiture is primarily used to fight drug crimes, especially narcotics trafficking (Van Den Berg, 873). Since the passage of the 1970 Comprehensive Drug Reform Act civil asset forfeiture has been expanded by law enforcement in order to meet the additional billions of dollars of strain that the war on drugs places on the budgets of city and county law enforcement agencies around the nation (Ann- Yu Chi, 1639).
The Department of Justice has addressed that the “SB 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with federal government's authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “The constitution and federal law do not permit the development of patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country” (“Citing”). In short terms, the state of Arizona has made up their own law in enforcing anti-immigration law and procedures that interferes with the U.S constitution. Problems have arisen due to how the SB 1070 is unreasonable when it comes to search and seizure (“Arizona's”). The law enforcer will purposely attempt to prove that the suspect is guilty of something even if it is not lack of citizenship. This law has caused court challenges. “The lawsuit states that the SB 1070 violates the supremacy clause, the first amendment to freedom of speech, amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, and the equal protection clause” (“Arizona's”). This immigration law targets illegals yet the law is not quite legal
Conclusion Wrongful convictions are a disturbing threat to the criminal justice system. Concerned authorities must get to the causes behind and this trend, and put adequate measures in place to ensure the trend is reversed. The legal process must be beyond reproach, and police officres, prosecutors, counsel, and the jury must work in hearmony to ensure efficient and effective discharge of justice. The amount of money lost because of these convictions is