The Criminal Justice System Of The United States Of America

The speaker argues that the criminal justice system in America treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

Current mandatory minimum sentencing laws are in dire need of reform. A mandatory minimum sentence is a court decision where judicial discretion is limited by law. As a result, there are irrevocable prison terms of a specific length for people convicted of particular federal and state crimes. As of January 2014, more than 50 percent of inmates in federal prisons are serving time for drug offenses, and more than 60 percent of people incarcerated are racial and ethnic minorities. The use of safety valves and implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act are a few methods Congress employed to combat racial disparity in prisons. Mandatory minimum sentencing harshly punishes non-violent offenders, disproportionately affects minorities, and skews the balance of power between judges and prosecutors.

The establishment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws has been a policy blunder since their proliferation in the 1980s. Mandatory minimum laws are negatively affecting the U.S, economically and socially. These laws effectively strip judges of their ability to adjudicate a fair punishment by setting a minimum sentence and handing their discretion over to prosecutors. A number of individuals and their families have been negatively affected by mandatory minimum penalties, however, there are others indirectly affected by these policies. The U.S. taxpayer has to foot the bill for these inmates, all while knowing that prison recidivism rates are tremendously high. These laws are contributing to the over-federalization of crimes by interfering with the state criminal justice system. The abolishment or reform of the federal mandatory minimums is needed to end the social and economic damage these laws have caused.

In what ways is the indigenous justice paradigm in conflict with the principles of the traditional, adversarial American criminal justice system? In what ways do the principles of Native American justice complement more mainstream correctional initiatives?

“The court finds you guilty on all accounts. You are sentenced to 35 years in federal prison. Court dismissed.” If only justice in America was the same as a hollywood movie, where, in the end, each and every person put on trial receives a true and just verdict. It would be nice if America’s justice system was designed so that “you couldn’t be the next victim of corruption - innocent and sent to prison, or strapped to a table and put to death; or robbed of your life savings by American lawyers” (Sachs, America’s Corrupt Legal). Welcome to the new America, where all it takes is pockets as deep as the Pacific Ocean to be innocent and poverty to be found guilty, thrown in jail, and not given a second thought. Although America often prides itself on its just ways of governing and dealing with potential criminals, the justice system is often corrupted because of social issues, ethical issues, corrupt officials, and control of the press.

Since the policy was enacted in the early 1990s, three strikes laws have been one of the most controversial issues facing the American criminal justice system. In general, advocates believe that locking up criminals will protect society. Critics believe that three-strike policy can only be effective with offenders that are on their last strikes (Worrall, 2008). However, other critics explain how three-strike laws don’t significantly reduce crime because most criminals mature out of the criminal lifestyle (Worrall, 2004).

Myths are stories telling a part of the world view of a society or give an explanation of a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. It is a popular viewpoint, embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society. Although myths are regarded as fictional representations, they often reveal underlying ideals. Myths often tell us more about our social and cultural values than they do about any particular circumstance. While myths seem to explain events, often times they instruct us on integrating an event an individual’s belief system and worldviews. The phrase crime myths does not stray too far from these definitions. These types of myths are

In the criminal justice system there is very rarely a single linchpin that can be pointed to and held responsible for the failure to convict a seemingly guilty person. This reigns true for the very public prosecutions of both Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. In the eyes of a vast majority of the public, fueled by media spectacle and opinion, Anthony and Zimmerman were guilty even before they ever saw the inside of a courtroom. There simply could be no other answer. The public was subsequently outraged when, after what seemed to be trials of certainty, juries acquitted each. The public sought to find someone, or something to blame. The verdict could not be accepted and many turned their focus to condemn the workings of the criminal

Crime takes place all the time and it is America’s duty to ensure that these criminals are properly punished for their wrongdoings. With rehabilitation, one can not ensure that if given a second chance the criminal will not offend again. We need to confront crime with a proper punishment and that is where retribution comes in. With retribution society appears more secure and crimes of violence decrease. Since it is essential to control violence in society, retribution is essential. Retribution should undoubtedly be favored over rehabilitation in America’s criminal justice system because it enforces the law and ensures justice. Newman as a punishment for crime , “poor results Foundation work for other agencies to tackle crime.” Death leads to the front. Murder they are . Also open to allow them to better everyday in addition, the complex moral crime.

The criminal justice system is the set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. The system is not one single criminal justice system in the United States but nevertheless many similar, individual systems. How every particular system works in each area depends on who is in charge of the city, county, state, or federal. Different authorities have different laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. There are two primary systems which are, state, criminal justice systems handle crimes committed within their state boundaries and the federal, criminal justice system handles crimes committed on federal property or in more than one state. Most criminal

Garland argues that a new predicament has occurred over the last 30 years within the criminal justice system that encompasses one of the six adaptive responses. One of the six is believed to effect the various implications for administrative and political actions.