The Role Of Conflicts In Criminal Cases

Since the conflict model asserts that the criminal justice system’s purpose is to maintain economic and political control by the dominant class, it must be true that the dominant class has access to the system and even the laws that are applied to defendants by judges and by the process of civil procedure. The model informs us, that every decisive aspect of the criminal justice could potentially be controlled by a powerful person or entity. Even the jury selection process is informed by conflict model. In jury selection, the party with the most educated, savvy, and well-connected attorney – usually the costliest – can often control the composition of a jury according to race, gender, and political sway. The conflict model represents the system

The consensus model of criminal justice suggests that society strives to maintain a harmonious social order, and social institutions cement social bonds that counteract negative criminal tendencies. "The foundation of consensus perspective is the assumption that societies have an inherent tendency to maintain themselves in a state of relative equilibrium through the mutually and supportive interaction of their principal institutions. Consensus theory is a sociological perspective in which social order and stability and social regulation forms the base of emphasis" (Consensus perspective, 2011, Sociology Index). Societies are interdependent, and every element of society performs some essential function. The interdependent nature of all elements of a society creates a consensus of values and determines what should be required of citizens. By nature, societies are seen as tending towards consensus, and finding an equilibrium of common values is seen as beneficial for society (Sociology perspectives: The order and the conflict model, 2009, Minority Studies). Consensus theorists tend to see minority or dissident groups as troubling, given that they can upset the social structure and cause unrest. The goal of the criminal justice system is to enable people to fit into social institutions.

Chapter 9 focuses on special topics, which reviews the five present and controversial issue in the criminal justice system. Out of all 5 of these issues I think that the use of confidential informants in war on drug is the most harmful to our nation’s correctional system and should be eliminated. The reason I think that the use of confidential informants should be eliminated drug war on drugs is because the use of CI’s frequently have negative consequence on the war on drugs (Austin & Irwin, 2012). The first example, is that CI’s are not appropriately screened and supervised, which causes innocent individuals to be arrest. In my opinion, I think that if CI’s are going to be used then they should be supervised at all time because the lack

A probable cause is established at the time of a preliminary hearing or preliminary examination. The hearing judge decides whether there is a combination of facts and circumstances that would encourage a reasonably intelligent person to believe that he or she should commit a crime. A probable cause must be examined from different angles in order to closely understand the mind of a person with non-criminal background. Those with a non-criminal background are exposed to committing crimes regardless of how clean their criminal record might look. Usually, the jury’s determination of a probable cause impacts the final decision of the case and how serious the law breaker’s punishment will be.

Like police officials, the public views prosecutors as the heroes in criminal cases because they are the ones who are acting for the good of the people, helping to fight crime, and ensuring the safety of the public. Or so we are lead to believe. However, many cases like the Nicarico case or the Rivera case show that the prosecutors are doing the opposite, and are instead hurting innocent people. In the Nacarico case, one instances of misconduct was when the prosecutor collaborated with their lieutenant, stating that he had been aware of the statement made by Cruz and was listed by the prosecution as a witness. However, later it came to light that the lieutenant was not in fact made aware of the “statement.” Even though there had been no written record of such a statement, simply because the right people claimed it occurred, the common trust bias in prosecutors and police officials cause the state of Illinois to pursue Cruz for over twelve

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

In America we have an Adversary System of Justice, which means that criminal trials proceed under the adversary theory of justice to arrive at the truth in a given case. One characteristic of this system is intensive cross-examination of both defense and prosecution witnesses. In a jury trial, it is for the jury, which observes these witnesses, to weigh the evidence and make the ultimate decision in every case—guilty or not guilty. However, not every case makes it to trial in fact, about 80% of defendants plead guilty allowing them to just be sentenced and not have to go through the whole process of a trial. Other cases are dropped, or dismissed if the prosecutor, or in some cases a grand jury, feels that there is insufficient evidence to carry on. Some defendants are sent to diversion programs, these individuals are often sent here because an official involved in the case believes that there is a better way to deal with a defendant than to prosecute them.

Research on police and prosecutors reveals that uniformly they disagree that discrimination occurs in their agency and office. What then explains the disproportionate minority contact that occurs and the disparate treatment within the prosecutor’s office?

Many years ago, before courts existed matters was handled in a privately or informally. This often led to violence and unjust treatment of innocent people. During the rise of the Greek City States and the Roman Empire law enforcement became a public affair instead of private. (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worral, 2011). Along with this movement became formalized courts and other criminal justice institutions. This allowed for law enforcement matters to be handled in a more civilized manner for resolving human conflict.

According to academic journal Enhancing Accountability and Trust with Independent Investigations of Police Lethal Force by Walter Katz, local prosecutors are not immune from bias. When a cop is under investigation the prosecutors are put in a situation because they usually work together. Usually the police officers are giving the prosecutors all the evidence when dealing with a normal case so when the situation is reversed and the prosecutor must indict a cop it sometimes put them in a bad situation. “Prosecutors face ‘an impossible conflict of interest between their desire to maintain working relationships and their duty to investigate and prosecute police brutality (Walter, Katz 239).” That statement supports the idea that there should not

From the first police station built in Boston to what is today's modern police force there has always been corruption inside the criminal justice system, whether it be something as little as a small bribe to look the other way, or something more serious like getting away with a major offense. The department of justice has had trouble from top to bottom with corruption and it has proven to be a difficult problem to fix. When policing in the U. S. were just starting out corruption and law bending was more prevalent but harder to see which Police officers who were following the rules and who was bending the law in their own favor to gain an advantage for themselves rather than looking out for the community as a whole. This is because when policing first started out there were limited officers, which meant less word of mouth and less people to respond to and

To begin with, the job a prosecutor has is to gather the facts of the case, along with interviewing material witnesses, and study the evidence that was collected. Next, there may be two attorneys who work the case and both should make the case hold up in court. Finally, an example of a case “where the prosecutor was unethical was when Michael B. Nifong charged Duke university lacrosse team in 2007 with sexual assault, and other crimes, although the evidence collected did not prove that they were guilty.” (pg.)

In the crucible the main conflict is that they don’t like the devil and they will get rid of any people that are affiliated with evil. Some people where innocent and still prosecuted.

In the storys “Trial by Combat” and Summer Ball there are parts where unspoken viewpoints influence the tension within conversations. This is shown between Emily and Mrs. Allens conversation and Danny’s and his dads conversation. Both show how unspoken viewpoints can create tension within the conversation. In the story “Trial by Combat” there is tension because Emily knows that Mrs. Allens is taking her stuff.

Police officers support prosecutors because they are both “on the same side”. Between them, they can and do manipulate, suppress,