The Pros And Cons Of Criminal Justice

First, Miranda v. Arizona all started on March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old Phoenix woman told police that she had been kidnapped, taken to a part of desert land in Arizona, and was raped. She was given a polygraph test, but the results were inadequate. While tracking the license plate number, they came upon a vehicle, similar to that of the women’s attacker, linking them to a man named Ernesto Miranda, who was booked for being a peeping tom. When they put a police line-up for the women to pick out Ernesto, she couldn’t identify, but he was still questioned by police. Police began to interrogate Mr. Miranda and never read him his rights, before interrogation. The interrogation lasted two- hours, in which Miranda supposedly admitted to committing the crimes, and the police had an audio recording of the entire interview. Ernesto had never finished ninth grade and had a history of mental uncertainty.

The criminal justice system has been proven to play a very important role in society. The criminal justice system is used to keep the citizens in check and to make sure that the laws that are made are being followed. It also is there to penalize anyone who disobeys the laws. In the criminal justice system, there are 3 main parts, law enforcement, adjudication, and corrections. Law enforcement is self-explainable. It consists of the law enforcers such as police officers and sheriffs. Adjudication is made up of people in the court house such as judges and lawyers. Corrections is made up of jailhouse matters such as prison officials. In these many components of the criminal justice system, there are all put in place to help correct people to do the right thing. There are punitive efforts and rehabilitative efforts. At time, the system may lean towards one category or more, which can be dangerous in terms of disciplinary action. The criminal justice system is more punitive than rehabilitative which makes the system ineffective.

The justice system is just but the procedures within are somewhat flawed. Human nature is to have greed and power, that's what crumbles the system. People use the system for what it isn't intended for and get away with it whether it's good or bad. Such as the Tarina Garnet case. Trina Garnett, was a mentally disabled teenage girl who was charged with murder, after setting a fire that killed two people and was sentenced to life in prison.

People often wonder why does the criminal justice (CJ) system fail to rehabilitate the inmates before they are released from prison, after all isn’t that part of the process? Isn’t it a mandatory that the inmates participate in this rehabilitation process? Inmates are often released before their sentenced in completed and this can leave the victim and family with a feeling of betrayal from the justice system, they should serve more time, after all they stole my property and my money. This feeling of needing a longer sentence for the crime that was committed is excessive, especially when the crime value may be minimal and wanting the inmate to serve seven to ten years incarcerated in excessive.

The topic of criminal justice reform has been around for many years,but has just become a major problem in these last couple of years. Criminal justice reform is a type of reform that is trying to target the outstanding errors in criminal justice system. The goals of the reform would be decrease the prison population, reducing prison sentences,and getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences for low-class/level drug dealers. Obama paved the way for the Criminal Justice reform he made it easier for them to come out and to be integrated in back into society to lead a “regular” life and escape the label of “con”. The reform for the criminal justice system is a great program for those who have been given too much time for the crime they committed,those who have been falsely accused of crime etc.

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform detained criminal suspects of their constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. This decision was the result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. The case began in 1963 when a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his interrogation. In addition, during his questioning Miranda had no counsel present despite the fact that he had a history of mental instability. Within the two hours he was questioned, Miranda allegedly confessed to the charges. His confession then went on to serve as the only evidence presented at the trial. Miranda was

Between February and March of 1966 the Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona took place (Worrall, 2015). In this case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona because he was accused of raping a woman. Miranda was interrogated by officers for two hours before confessing both written and orally. He was charged with kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. While this case is the main thing upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were three other cases backing their decision – Vignera vs. New York, Westover vs. United States, and California vs. Stewart. Based on these three cases, the Supreme Court upheld that before any questioning a suspect must be aware that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to them before interrogation (Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v Arizona). This ruling has been implied in all criminal cases since and anytime these rights are not read to a suspect they are acquitted. Miranda vs. Arizona has been the face of a very big change in the way the criminal justice system is run and will continue to be for many years to come.

The last fifty years of American law have changed drastically due to numerous “landmark” court cases. For those who have studied these landmark cases, Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most crucial of these cases. Until the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966, when a person was arrested, they were not given a fair awareness of their rights as a citizen, which often times resulted in the self incrimination or unknowingly admitting to guilt (McBride). The Miranda decision provided a constitutional and reasonable way of allowing the suspect to fully embrace their fifth and sixth amendment rights without any form of admission of guilt.

Before being brought to trial, one’s first interactions with the legal system will almost always begin with the police. Before the case of Miranda v. Arizona, police were not required to make anyone aware of their right to stay silent and to have legal representation. This allowed for them to easily acquire confessions from individuals who were either unaware of their rights or were overwhelmed by the altercation and accidentally incriminated themselves. In 1966,

Fines, fees, and bail regulate the citizens within our society. However, all three of these economic penalties have pros and cons that have an impact on every person in our society. This article, called Fine, Fees, and Bail enlightens the reader of fundamental information everyone should be familiar with when it involves these sanctions. Numerous individuals in the general public think these penalties are cruel, easy ways for the government to expand their revenue for the criminal justice system, however this isn’t always true. Misdemeanors resulting in fines, fees, or bail occasionally place financial liability on the offender on which they cannot pay, and this causes the unfortunate person to serve jail time just because they lacked the ability

In regards to prosecuting criminals, there are jurisdictional issues that need to be kept in mind because it can hinder an entire criminal case. If there is no law broken, there is no crime committed. In the United Stated, there are three branches of law; criminal law, civil law and regulatory law. Each area of a town, city and states has different geographic areas with many laws that encompass a certain area (Shinder, 2001). For example, a crime committed in Texas and be treated completely different in a court of law in the state of Louisiana. Several laws exist in all levels of government and because there are many separate systems an individual can be charged, tried and acquitted

In the year 2017, many technological advancements have been made, especially to reduce crime and the possibility of people committing it, including things such as police bodycams, which can catch someone in the act of committing a crime. In spite of these and many other deterrents, people still continue to commit them. In the attempt to explain why people commit them, there have been many theories thought of to explain it. There are two predominant theories that attempt to explain why people still commit crimes, the strain theory and the control theory. According to the strain theory the inequality that is present in today’s society creates the motivation for people to commit crime. On the other hand according to the control theory humans are innately self-destructive and it is only through socialization that we can produce self control. No matter what one thinks is right, the truth of the matter is incarceration rates continue to rise and higher percentages of certain populations are going to jail. Though just one possibility, these two theories might be able to help explain the overlying question of why people commit crime. If one were to analyze Bruce Western and Becky Pettit’s article “Incarceration and Social Inequality,” one could find examples for both theories.

Every criminal defendant that is in state and federal courts is appointed a counsel by the court. Anyone who is unable to pay the cost of a representative must be appointed a counsel during federal proceedings. The Criminal Justice Act was established to help the criminals who are unable to pay for a counsel. Before this act there was nobody able to appoint these people for their service. The CJA reimbursed the expenses and payments of the attorneys to help give the criminals and good defense. There are now over 81 authorized federal defender organizations. The criminal justice system is looking out for their best interest. By paying for their expenses, this helps the criminal have a reliable representative behind them. Federal defenders receive

Mrs Smith claims that one-day last year, she saw Dan point a gun in the direction of his girlfriend and pull the trigger. The gun failed to fire because the mechanism was faulty, but Dan had not been aware of that until after he had pulled the trigger. Dan is now being tried for the attempted murder of his girlfriend, under the provisions of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. He claims that he did not point the gun in his girlfriend’s directions alleged and that Mrs Smith is mistaken or is lying. Secondly, he claims that the act of pointing a gun in this way is not legally capable of falling within the relevant section of the 1981 Act.

The majority of the people that committed crimes in the 19th century looked like people you could have inferred were crime committers. Most of the people that committed crimes lived lifestyles that were not the best, just as today’s crime committed crimes. They did the crime so they did the time.