The Criminal Justice System Of The United States Constitution

Our society for the most part has a set of written laws by which it operates under. Laws govern our behavior in society and list punishments by which individuals that break them will be prosecuted and sentenced. Our criminal justice system is essential made up of three major intuitions which see a case from the beginning and through the trial and finally to the punishment phase ("How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?," 2014). Our society needs laws and punishment for those who violet the laws otherwise we would live in a world of chaos. In this paper we will examine various aspects of the criminal process from arrest through sentencing and appeal.

Today, in the United States, most citizens are able to appreciate the fair, balanced legal system that is in place. The country suffered many failures before establishing the United States Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, which became the foundation of the country’s legal system and protection of the citizens’ rights (American Sentinel University). Citizens may take their right to trial or their right to due process for granted, without realizing how life was before these rights were recognized and established. Until the Constitution in 1787, the justice system was not permanent and not quite clear, causing unfair and unjust treatment. Of course, no system can be perfect, but it is possible to discover options that suit the wants

The criminal justice system consists of models and theories that often contradict one another. Of these models are the crime control model, the due process, model, the consensus model and the conflict model. In this paper these models are evaluated and defined, as well as each entity in the criminal justice systems role within each model. Policing, corrections and the court system all subscribe to each model in some way and in a hurried manner in cases that dictate such a response. As described by Erik Luna in the Models of Criminal Procedure, the following statement summarizes the aforementioned most appropriately.

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).

The criminal justice system in the United States has traditionally operated under two fundamentally different theories. One theory is the Crime Control Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that criminals should be aggressively pursued and crimes aggressively punished. The other theory is the Due Process Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that the rights of the accused need to be carefully protected in any criminal justice investigation. (Levy, 1999)

To provide a balance in specific nations and considerations of cross cutting, the issues must go beyond national boundaries. The traditional contrast of adversarial versus legal systems will be to determine what impacted each system that may have on preventing wrongful convictions and whether or not the traditional difference remains viable or needs revision. The number of public policies intended to reduce the number of these convictions and compensate more fairly and just to those who are the victims of these mistrials.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”(UN General Assembly, 1948). But history has demonstrated that even though as human you are entitled to a fair trial, you are not entitled to justice. Throughout history, many reforms and movements have forged our judicial system, the judicial system currently is undeniably more foolproof than it was before the 1900s. Even though the system has improved in numerous ways by laws and amendments such as the 6th amendment in 1791, but history repeats itself. The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 and the Scottsboro Boys Trials are embodiments of this saying, they may have happened 240 years apart but have many things in common. Some things these trials have in common are insufficient evidence, unfair chances, and long term effects on the victims and community.

While the United States’ justice system has been a model for many countries around the world, the injustice of certain aspects in our court’s system is prominent. Mandatory minimums are just one example the of injustice in our justice system. The Supreme Court has “…casted doubt on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines used for nearly two decades” (Kenneth Jost, 2004), despite this, nothing has been done to correct it. And while the idea of mandatory minimums is a good thing, they don’t work in the American justice system or in current American society.

In delving further into the debate between the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of mandatory sentencing, it is relevant to scrutinize the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. There is concern “that the Guidelines did not allow sufficient judicial discretion.” Congress in turn argued that the Guidelines were created to alleviate the disproportionate sentences created by judicial discretion.

It is not without questionable doubt that the United States judiciary branch is in need of a major political reform in terms of the injustice that has become so common within the system. The main purpose of the judicial system is to rightfully resolve disagreements according to law. In 1988, Ronald Kitchen was wrongfully convicted for committing five murders, after serving nearly 21 years in prison in which 13 of them on death row he was released. There was an insufficient amount of evidence against him, however, it was the tortures that he endured for almost two days that coerced false confessions from Kitchen to pleading guilty to the murders. The justice system has lost its true purpose of finding justice for whoever is truly at fault. Instead of truth-seeking, court cases have become more about self-interest and winning. Majority of cases do not even reach trial, before then the guilty are let go free or let off easy while the innocent take guilty pleas in fear of risking loosing at trial. Today’s trials just involve two sides in continuous debate that end in the hope for the judge and jury to be able to emerge the truth. Modern judiciary branch has become so accustomed to the idea that court is a neutral course and the judges

Most stages of the criminal justice system revolve around the sentencing process, in that the primary focus is determining the guilt or innocence of the accused (Neubauer & Pradella, 2011). As a result, numerous laws, policies, and practices have been implemented throughout the system as a means to make sentencing procedures less complex. However, most of these sentencing laws have produced an adverse effect, and generated barriers during this stage of the justice process. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to provide further insight on challenges within the sentencing process in regard to sentencing laws. More specifically, three strikes laws are discussed in-detail as a means to present the positive and negative impacts they have

The criminal justice system is an essential aspect of American society as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of laws is to protect society from harm, ensure everyone’s safety, and equally treated. The criminal justice system works to protect the innocent and punish the guilty without violating the rights the criminal suspect to avoid any injustices. As society evolves the criminal justice system needs to evolve so it is important to create new laws to keep up with the evolution and new trends. As new trends and contemporary issues develop in society, they can have a direct impact on the different functions of the criminal justice

Most people don’t know about the three major components of the criminal justice system, but, in this paper the reader will know what they are. The reader will also read about how the three components interrelate to one another, and also how the conflict one another. The

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

Indeed, a greater emphasis on outcome over moral justice indirectly places a higher value on the delinquent and diminishes the authority of the law as well as the safety of society. The priority of outcome over law is still represented in contemporary courtrooms. Included in the journal article “Sentencing: A Role For Empathy” by author Denny Chin, is an example of how this ideology is existent in current courtroom sentences. Chin mentions how in most cases, the Probation Department will conduct a pre-sentence investigation, which will include an interview of the defendant. The Probation Department will issue a pre-sentence report (PSR) that will contain extensive information about the defendant, including his or her personal background and the details of the crime of conviction.