Nowadays, the criminal justice system enforcement area faces some major challenges that should be addressed as soon as possible. The key issues associated with the enforcement area of criminal justice include responding to crimes committed by the youth, addressing the needs of victims, preventing wrongful convictions, police misconduct as well as controversial plea bargains, making sure that law enforcement agencies have only lawful access to information, and preventing ineffective sharing of information between agencies.
Furthermore, the changes in social and political life in the country also have a significant impact on the enforcement of criminal justice since there is an increased amount of criminal opportunities that may directly impact the law enforcement itself. Among such are intellectual property crimes, environmental, and biotechnology crimes (Wardlaw, n.d.). Thus, apart from being affected by previously unresolved problems, the criminal justice system now has to deal with crimes, which are based on innovation.
As police misconduct became a significant problem, the enforcement of the criminal justice system will be modified to address bias, prosecute unlawful actions committed by police, and enhance the process of data collection on law enforcement agencies. Prevention of wrongful convictions and questionable plea bargains should also be addressed by law enforcement through not arresting the wrong person and making sure that the plea bargain does not minimize the guilt.
Judiciary Issues
The two judiciary issues that will become prominent in the Criminal Justice System are the sentencing reform and the improvement of criminal procedures. As the current justice system is dealing with overcriminalization and overpopulation in prisons, it is crucial to begin the sentencing reform to make sure that only severe offenses are punished by large sentences. The Sentencing Reform Act of 2015 has already reduced the sentence minimum for drug-related offenses as well as offered judges more discretion in deciding on appropriate sentences while making sure that individuals committing severe crimes do not walk free early (House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 2015).
Achieving improvements in criminal procedures is another problem that should be addressed by the Criminal Justice System since the issues in criminal procedures may often lead to wrongful convictions or false confessions. One of the improvements is associated with the Rapid DNA Act, which allows police stations to conduct rapid DNA analysis for appropriate identification.
Custodial Issues
The two custodial issues that will become prominent in the Criminal Justice System are associated with the application of alternative to incarceration methods and the reforms in the juvenile justice system. Currently, the US heavily relies on imprisonment as the key criminal sanction (American Bar Association, 2008), despite the fact that many countries around the globe prefer choosing new methods. There is a total of 2.3 million prisoners in the US, which means that the judicial system imprisons approximately 24% of the global population of prisoners (American Bar Association, 2008).
Furthermore, around 1.5 million children are currently in prisons; this calls for reform in the Criminal Justice System. Community-based programs and sanctions are useful alternatives to punishment for those offenders who do not pose a threat to society. As to the challenges associated with the juvenile justice system, it is crucial to provide qualified counsel for the youth, remove them from adult jails, reduce ethnic and racial bias, and focus on the prevention of juvenile crime as opposed to ‘locking up’ children in prisons.
References
American Bar Association. (2008). Criminal justice system improvements. Web.
House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. (2015). Criminal justice reform initiative. Web.
Wardlaw, G. (n.d.). The future and crime: Challenges for law enforcement. Web.
The elderly, like any other age group, are victims of violence and criminal injustices. However, the government has not been able to respond effectively to the abuse of older adults, with little information and statistics available to show the vulnerability of the elderly to abuse. Regardless of the less possibility of the elderly being abused than young adults, there is a need for intervention. There are laws among all the federal states that protect from abuse for the elderly, who typically are sixty years old and above. Therefore, as most advocates suggest, abuse against the elderly requires various stakeholders, including law enforcement and domestic violence agencies, to work together for a solution. As a result, for legal action against the elderly, the abuse against them has to be intentional and must cause harm. Besides, a situation whereby the caregivers of the elderly fail to provide for them will be termed as an abusive situation. Some of the abuse the elderly face can be categorized into institutional elder abuse, family elder abuse, and self-abuse. The paper highlights the several issues experienced by the elderly in accessing criminal justice interventions.
Abuse for the elderly has led to increased cases of depression, physical injuries, and trauma among older adults. In the fight against the abuse of older adults, various issues arise in accessing criminal justice interventions. One of the issues includes mandated reporting, whereby the state provides legal permission for individuals to report any allegations of elderly abuse. There is a requirement for the mandated reporters to provide the exact time and place of the suspected abuse of the elderly (Gosselin, 2019). Even though identifying abuse against the elderly is difficult because of their reluctance to open up about abuse, mandated reporters should ensure a piece of accurate information is provided. Response to elderly abuse is another issue in accessing criminal justice intervention whereby the rate of response by the criminal justice department has not been effective. Thus, there have been multidisciplinary teams around the states to ensure quick responses and prevent abuse of older adults. There have been experiences of transition from traditional criminal justice methods, thus enabling more protection for the elderly. The multidisciplinary teams improve access to criminal justice among the elderly by providing channels and assistance programs.
The police response is another arising matter in criminal justice interventions whereby the law enforcers must apply a multidisciplinary approach. Police are recommended to use modified responses other than just arresting and prosecuting the abuse perpetrators. A thorough evaluation of situations might be more effective and reduce the possibility of causing more harm. Police officers should act as liabilities in ensuring that the elderly are protected from abuse and criminal violations that can cause harm. However, perpetrators can be arrested, and investigations carried out depending on the extent of the reported abuse and the possibility of repeated abuse. In investigating an abuse, the police should consider the guiding principles that include determining the cause and the jurisdiction mandate for the arrest.
Due to the changing times and more aging population, there should be effective measures to ensure that the elderly are not exposed to abuse. The elderly experience risk of physical and mental suffering due to their abuse and any other forms of criminal violence. The elderly are vulnerable and need legislation protection and law enforcement to protect them from violations. Police and other law enforcers should be able to respond effectively to any reported cases of elderly abuse. There is also a need for multidisciplinary teams and mandatory reporting to be considered within the communities to prevent elderly abuse.
Reference
Gosselin, D.K. (2019). Family and inmate partner violence: Heavy hands. Pearson.
The Military Tribunals initiated in 2002 have triggered criticism regarding their violation of several established procedures. The current administration was inclined on the suspension of the proceedings, but instead re-initiated them, introducing several new complications. Currently, the Tribunals violate several human rights, allow for the undue process, and accept the questionable practices of treating the evidence.
The first major violation deals with the rights of the defendant related to the evidence. According to the currently established procedure of most of the states, the accused has the right to gain access to all of the evidence at any time in the process (“Texas Young Lawyers Association and State Bar of Texas” 4). The military tribunals override this right. For instance, during the trials of Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi, a Saudi accused of war crimes, the prosecution claimed to possess the evidence that was not accessible to the public or the defendant.
The reason given for this restriction was the “sensitivity” of the information which, once made available, could potentially compromise national security (Flynn par. 4). While this may sound plausible given the character of the information the military cases deal with and the matters at stake, it also means that the defense has no means of properly defending themselves. While this violation can not be characterized as unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not explicitly require the disclosure, the federal system and most of the state statutes specify the rule.
However, another highly controversial topic regarding the evidence used in the Tribunals can be deemed unconstitutional. According to the Fourth Amendment, the evidence can not be obtained as a result of the unreasonable search or seizure (Justia par. 4). The Fifth Amendment also specifies the right to remain silent during interrogation, protecting the defendant from self-incrimination. Both amendments effectively protect the accused from coercive interrogation process. Any evidence or confession that falls under suspicion of being obtained with violation of these rights does not have weight in legal proceedings. This, however, is not the case during Military Tribunals.
The case of Omar Khadr features several prominent violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. There is strong evidence backed by Khadr’s statement that his testimonies were extracted under torture and abuse. The interrogations also were conducted immediately after his imprisonment and did not take into account the life-threatening wounds he sustained only several days prior. One of the interrogators also testified of using the “fear up” technique by telling Omar stories of the previous prisoners in similar situations being violently raped and murdered (Ridgeway and Casella par. 5).
The latter also comes in conflict with the right to due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (Justia par. 8). Despite being obtained in violation of at least three human rights, the evidence against Omar Khadr was considered valid in court (Ridgeway and Casella par. 2).
The Military Tribunals also limit the defendant’s options of using the attorney on the same grounds they limit the disclosure of evidence. The Trial Guide for Military Commissions lists the eligibility for a Secret clearance among the range of requirements for a lawyer that may represent the defendant in court (4). This effectively denies the accused the free choice of attorneys and thus violates the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment (Justia par. 6). While arguably not a direct violation, it still severely limits the freedom of choice.
The third limitation based on the sensitivity of the information involved that disrupts the established proceedings is the possibility of the limited access. Once the presiding officer or the appointed authority decides the discretion is needed to avoid the disclosure of classified information or to protect the physical safety of the participants, he or she has the right to close the proceedings (RCFP par. 5). While the concern is justified, it affects the Freedom of Information and violates the First Amendment.
The Tribunals permit the conviction of the accused after the agreement of the two-thirds of the jury. In the case of Omar Khadr, only seven jury members were required to agree upon the decision, a condition which is unacceptable in the civilian court (Ridgeway and Casella par. 7).
The violations of the due process were further aggravated in 2011 with authorizing the creation of the periodic review boards. These boards were meant to deal with the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay who were prosecuted by the dedicated military commissions or the Federal Court. However, in reality, the prisoners eligible for trial by PRB are numerous (116 men were reported in 2015) (“A Rebuke to Military Tribunals” par. 7) and, more importantly, the process turned out to be far slower than predicted.
At the same time, the executive order authorizing the creation of the boards does not specify the time frame of the detention, virtually allowing the process to be stretched indefinitely. In fact, some of the prisoners are held in the facility since its opening 14 years ago. Such conditions are clearly violating the due process and are thus unconstitutional.
Finally, the biggest issue with the Military Tribunals is the accusations of conspiracy. Many of the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay faced this charge, which is not considered valid under either the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For instance, al Sharbi was charged with conspiracy to commit murder by an unprivileged belligerent (Flynn par. 9). Under closer inspection, it becomes evident that the charge is not an accusation of murder, or even of the murder attempt.
Instead, al Sharbi was basically accused of considering a murder of the enemy combatants. While such charges have taken place at some point in the American history, specifically during World War II, they are currently unacceptable under other conditions and have triggered counteractions by lawyers, including the chief prosecutor of the military commissions General Mark S. Martins (Savage par. 2). Nevertheless, the charges of conspiracy have not been dropped.
The military commission set up to prosecute aliens as a part of the Military Tribunals is also questionable in terms of legal practices. The commission inevitably violates the bilateral treaties that safeguard the equality of treatment, and may be viewed as discriminating on the basis of national origin. Besides, it is in direct conflict with several points of International Criminal Court, such as the requirement for the U.S. Military Commission members to be judges proficient in criminal law, the possibility of in-camera proceedings, and the acceptance of the indirect evidence in court. However, the ICC procedures are not officially recognized in U.S. and thus have no formal power.
In conclusion, the Military Trials in their current form violate several established criminal justice procedures, such as the choice of attorney, the admission of evidence, and the availability of information, both to the public and to the defendant, among others. Besides, they present a range of complications resulting from disparities with the international criminal court laws and open the possibility for the unethical practices that may potentially compromise the legal proceedings.
It is rather complicated to describe the criminal justice process in the US because it is not consistent and differs in various locations. Still, it involves some general and common elements, which provides an opportunity to describe its peculiarities in total. All in all, they provide the governments with the opportunity to control crime and ensure a decent environment in the city, state, and country. This process is rather long-lasting, and it consists of several administrative procedures. They start with the commitment of a crime and its investigation and end with the defendant’s opportunity to appeal to the court.
Investigation. It is the initial procedure maintained by the officials after the law was violated. It is held by the police that aim to gather all possible evidence that can help to define the suspect (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt para. 5).
Arrest. Then one can be arrested and taken into custody if the reasonable link with the committed crime is found.
Booking. The administrative record of this person is made to ensure that one is in the system and can be found if needed (Department of Government and Justice Studies para. 16).
Prosecution. The prosecutor considers the case and defines whether the suspect should be charged or not.
Initial appearance. When appearing before a judge for the first time, the suspect can be released because of the lack of evidence or sent further.
Preliminary hearing. During this procedure, all information about the case is considered to determine if a trial can be warranted. The suspect may also dispute the charges at this stage. It can also be held in a form of a grand jury, depending on the state law peculiarities (National Center for Victims of Crime para. 17).
Arraignment. The judge reads the defendant the indictment, and one tells whether he/she is guilty or not.
Trial. Especially when the guilt is not admitted, a jury or a judge listens to the case and considers whether the suspect is really the one who has committed a crime. In this way, it is determined what should be done to the person: whether one deserves punishment or can be released.
Sentencing. Being found guilty, the criminal is then sentenced by a judge. One can be put on probation, sent to prison or just made to pay a fine.
Appeal. The convict has a right to appeal if one considers that the outcome of the case was reasonably wrong. One can refer to some failures in the trial procedure, etc.
Punishment. Depending on the sentence, the convict can be released earlier or serve the complete term (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt para. 15).
All these procedures of the criminal justice process are tightly connected and are always maintained in a particular order, which ensures that the outcome of the crime case is appropriate and reasonable. Of course, the initial step of investigation is extremely important, as it starts the whole process. Without it, the police would not have any possibility to find a suspect and prove that one is guilty (unless this person admits that he/she is responsible and agrees to undertake the punishment).
Investigation triggers all other involved agencies and creates the case, which is to be considered and solved. Even though its significance cannot be denied, the procedure of a trial seems to be more influential one. During the trial, professionals prove whether the suspect is guilty or not (Offices of the United States Attorneys para. 1). Thus, here the outcome of the case can is decided. One can be released or pleaded guilty and then sentenced. In this way, it is identified during the trial if the whole process had sense and was successful or all resources were wasted in vain.
It may take weeks or even months to reach the procedure of the trial because this step requires a lot of other tasks to be accomplished. The prosecutor and the attorney of the suspect should be well aware of all peculiarities of the case they deal with and should have enough evidence to prove the guilt or innocence of the suspect. If one is likely to be sentenced to more than half a year, the trial usually involves the jury; if not, it is often held by a judge only (“The Criminal Justice Process” para. 46).
In this way, the trial seems also to be a checking procedure, which ensures that witness testimony and evidence are appropriate. In its framework, the sides have an opportunity to share their points of view, which allows to see the situation from different perspectives at the same time. As a result, the biases are likely to be reduced. While previous procedures maintained after the investigation are mainly focused on the officials ideas, the jury, and the judge make their mind when thinking as a defendant also. Moreover, the trial with a jury prevents the power excess, which not necessary but may be present during the previous procedures (The National Judicial College 1).
The fact that the trial presupposes the involvement of several people in the decision-making tends to prove its authoritativeness and appropriateness. As the verdict is announced, all officials who were involved in the criminal justice process can receive a proof that their work was maintained decently, and the victim or one’s family can be satisfied.
Thus, the procedure of the trial seems to be the most important one in the whole criminal justice process. It gathers the outcomes of all previous stages and reveals the expected outcome of the case.
Works Cited
Department of Government and Justice Studies. The Criminal Justice Process, 2016. Web.
The applications and skills stemming from brain science studies are starting to make an allowance for an increasingly newest understanding of the function of the human brain. The developments in neuroscience are continuing at a rapid rate and the legal and ethical suggestions are just starting to be measured. In 2002, the study reported that the connection between human behaviors and however, the public debate concerning genetic examination and its wide social implication overshadows that provided to modern technology and neuroscience. Neuroscience brings about several issues with regard to some central elements of the law. These core elements include free will, competency, and origin of violent act.
Some neuroscientific information starts to create somebody to be uneasy when using this sort of logic. Neuroscientists have reported that people who experience brain lesions in particular sections of their brains, particularly the prefrontal cortex, can commit ethically liable behaviors that would have been greatly out of character before they acquired brain damage. More challenging is evidence that most people are born with lesser PFCs or with other genetic or structural deficits which influence them to commit various unlawful activities. The question arises about if these people should be responsible for their behaviors, if they should be punished for their offenses, or if their brains dictate their actions. But actually, even the sort of determinism that emerges from physics is adequate to bring about issues concerning the strength of a retributive arrangement of justice.
Neuroscientific evidence creates these facts clear but inserts no actual information into the philosophical debate of free will. If people have enough knowledge about the available justice system as being premised on the perception of putting off crime instead of punishing the responsible, people can create complete sense and application of this contemporary neuroscientific information or analysis.
Neuroscience and the Future of Justice
Several studies have recognized the illogicality of determinism and free will. It makes sure that the advancements in science are improbable to eliminate people’s idea of free will because the suggestion of free will is a feeble belief. This also means that by pointing out the issues with the idea now, upcoming advancements will be unlikely to be able to surprise the people.
Neuroscience and Juvenile Rehabilitation
An increasing acknowledgment for the way the mind functions has uncovered major philosophical concerns in juvenile justice and the issues over whether juveniles must be considered grown-ups. Yet, instead of being a negative force to weak perceptions, these developments in neuroscience have called for an attentive review of such issues, resulting in an effective and more precise knowledge of the minds of teenagers. Likewise, these new insights contribute useful functions in their application to issues of juvenile crime behaviors. Identification of several factors that affect teenagers’ minds helps create constructive philosophies such as compensation and rehabilitation, establishing a growing sense of responsibility in young criminals for their activities so that they could grab the sense of action that the society has advanced to treasure.
Psychopathy and Criminal Responsibility
Psychopaths can distinguish between wrong and right, although emotionally have no sense of wrong and right. Psychopaths are different from people experiencing mental disorders since people with mental disorders may possess the impaired cognitive ability, but psychopaths have the required knowledge to identify those specific activities that are in opposition to the law or infringe social rules. Nevertheless, though they can create judgments concerning moral or legal violations, they appear to have a short of an essential factor that inspires people to conduct themselves morally. Therefore, neuroscience techniques can be used to evaluate the issues which are possessed by psychopaths relative to the law and social norms. Some studies give practical support for the latest techniques to be applied.
Critical psychopaths are not morally responsible or do not worth any punishment and fault since they do not have the required knowledge to identify the point of morality. They also lack a sense of right and wrong, and the ability to have moral rationality and knowledge. Therefore, it is very important for criminal law to apply an increasing neuroscientific and psychological fact that emotional ability is an essential aspect for interpreting truthful understanding concerning wrong and right into moral conduct. Criminal law should consider that psychopaths have some shortages mainly in this field and mental disorder classification of non-responsibility defense must take in the psychopath.
Monitoring and Imaging the Brain
The application of technologies for imaging and examining the human brain brings about a wide range of concerns, from brain loss to the conduct’s prediction. While imaging advancements go on to grow, neuroscientists are considering even more fine-grained images of brain activity, generating an important sense of the activities that occur in people’s brains as they execute jobs, undergo emotion, and participate in different behaviors. While this information can benefit the people by allowing them to understand the biological mind on how it functions, people must be responsive to the connected risks that they will abuse such information or be directed by it to depend too much on deterministic discussions. Some topics that are connected with the above issue will be discussed, which include prediction of violence, prediction of behavior, lie detection, and competencies and capacities.
Prediction of Behavior
Definitely, if a particular subject takes the sense of risk and promise from neuroscience, the capacity of predicting human action is it. The viewpoint of several neuroscientists is that expressive biology of behavior will be accessible in the future and is probably to integrate both neuroscientific and genetic understanding. However, predictive biology has not yet been established, but the enhancements in the neuroscientific understanding will certainly consider predictive capacity than what the people can attain in this environment. It is not important for predictive technologies to be entirely correct so that they can be applied in court sessions. Courts are applying a prediction system in plea bargaining, judgments, and ruling regarding the degree of probation and other events. In all these instances, the courts should evaluate future risks, including the possibility of recidivism against community and realistic issues. These issues include prison overcrowding and as a result, to the degree, that science can effectively notify those predictions, neuroscience has great assistance to the court proceedings.
When reflecting on the prediction of human behavior derived from neuroscientific methods, debate regularly turns primarily toward the association among advancing the neuroscientific understanding, legal function, and free will. In brief, as neuroscience discloses more concerning the brain, it turns out as increasingly clear that the brain is a physical issue regarding legal function or responsibility. Most people believed that neuroscience is very improbable to turn eventually over the idea of free will or individual responsibility in the framework of the law since responsibility is not a scientific creation, but a communal construct. Some points were provided to support this issue.
Some critics claimed that the idea of responsibility originates from observations concerning the capability of straightforward, deterministic, and rule-based arrangements to study upgraded guidelines and behaviors. As a community, people are expected to understand and follow such rules and behaviors, and other people considered that this biology of the brain contributes greatly in turning people to be creative and in turning people to believe that there should be responsiveness.
Some people agreed that humans consider themselves as a rational being and are directed and aggravated by reason. Since there is no other option for human beings to get outside people’s insight of themselves as rational creatures because of the manner they are constructed, they will go on to act and relate as if they are rational and to base conclusions concerning responsibility on their idea of, and belief in, rationality, even though they are fully determined. As a result, the available laws and rules will consider the knowledge of people as rational performers.
Other critics established that the concept of free will is improbable to be ignored, but considered that it was still likely for advancements in neuroscience to have considerable influence on the idea of responsibility. Rationality is not definite or understood and neuroscience might eventually contribute greatly in supporting understanding the creation of ‘rationality’ itself. It is also considered that the biggest influence of neuroscience on the idea of responsibility and free will be experienced not in exculpatory approaches, but mitigation and insight of risk. The mitigation can be considered being completely responsible due to the brain. While the insight of risk states that a person has an ability to follow the law, but his brain would not allow him, hence he may be a risk to society. The topic concerning responsibility and free will may continue for a long time. In any case, it appears clear that courts will go on to reflect on methods and technologies to predict behavior in their judgments or sentencing.
Courts, since they should provide judgments in an appropriate manner, are pushed to apply any rational device that could offer promising conclusions on the issue in sight. Hence, a risk occurs that predictive decisions will be derived from partial science. Moreover, the prediction based on neuroscience techniques can be provided excessive power similar to ‘scientific predictions’ when they can already undergo the typical issues inbuilt in the latest risk prediction representations. These include unfairness in choosing people for the team to which others are judged and dependability or validity matters in the prediction itself. It also includes the incapacity of a predictive measure to inform the people about a certain person, but just inform the people, probabilistically, concerning the team to which the person fits in.
The use of incomplete or faulty science, or the dependence on scientific predictions farther than what the science is intended to sustain, are precisely the sorts of issues that must be primary in the people’s mind when considering the possible social influence of predictive technologies or methods. It is not only when presenting judgments or sentences that prediction would have an influence, but also in educational institutions, government examination, health care facilities, jobs, and in other approaches that would hinder application by the court structure. The possibility to judge and discriminate because of the test outcomes might bring about a considerable destructive impact. These issues oppose the latest discussion about genetics and some people believe that public discussions about genetics can light up promises and drawbacks that might come with a better understanding of the human brain.
Predicting Violence
The host of potential predictions could be pleasing, such as the personal trend to be truthful or compliance to follow rules and laws, the possibility for violence is very important to be measured. Prediction of violence has since been the theme of many neuroscience studies and is likely to go on to take science’s attention, along with the legal system. The above explanation about the prediction of behavior is openly applicable to the prediction of violence and is a predictive technique probably both to have marvelous utility and to have a high risk of abuse. It is probably to cut the two approaches in criminal law: in mitigation and in making somebody being influenced to commit violence. As violent conduct is likely by no means to be predicted with full assurance, the possibility that methods will be created to differentiate those possible, or even almost possible, to retort with violence appears high enough that such methods should be measured for future studies and public debates.
Another issue is potential preventive applications of violent behavior or inclination to violence. Usually, in the legal system, people are punished according to their behavior, not on ‘tendencies’ or thoughts they possess, which should be followed when making decisions. The concept of enforcing treatment, or even creating conclusions concerning the profession, derived from various test outcomes, and in the nonexistence of previous violent conduct, opposes this central significance of the legal system.
Certainly, not all the potential approaches wherein predictions of ‘violence-proneness’ might be applied are destructive. For instance, in screening individuals whose occupations need them to tackle violence, and sometimes to react with violence, for instance, employees of the law enforcement agency and military, these analyzes can be very important. This could be taken as recognizing ‘violence-eligible’ people in society.
Competencies and Capacities
Although it may not be directly evident, establishing if somebody operates in a lawfully effective or binding manner, possibly to approve a binding contract, provide conclusions concerning someone’s medical treatment, or administer someone’s issues, share various connections to the prediction of behavior. Both analyzes may have an impact on the ways people reflect on a person’s legal responsibility for his or her behavior. Concerning an individual’s ability to act, people may search for the diminished capability to do anything which the law assigns or wants and then either discharge the person from legal responsibility or stop him or her from applying an option. Generally, the law considers that adults can conduct themselves in a way that contains legal consequences. Progresses in understanding memory developments and connection of neurological to genetics role can support to create of responsive and accurate techniques of determining competencies, in particular when coupled with developments in neuroimaging. Additionally, advanced medications produced for the cure of memory disorders can contribute greatly in the future in competencies problems through providing treatment to support in discovering or protecting competency.
Neuroscientific Lie Detection
The field of examining and imaging the brain with immediate apparent value is the advancement of lie detection based on neuroscience and various methods are being discovered to support these techniques. However, the neuroscientists proposed that the present methods are not derived from a clear neuroscientists’ knowledge of the incident or experience of lying. The short of any essential consistent academic framework signifies that the existing work depends only on tests linking brain activity with the incident of lying, basically ‘shooting in the dark.’
The major challenge experienced by accurate lie detection is what is called ‘the problem of memory’ and most modern approaches should be addressed to prevent any obstacle faced during this process. While it appears probably that methods could be produced to detect when somebody is deliberately lying, many studies stated distrust that someone might simply detect when somebody is only mistaken, that is to say, when somebody is instinctively saying the truth, but is factually incorrect. While this condition can be a challenge that will be overpowered in the future, scientists observed it as a considerable issue, which is common to several scientific techniques to lie detection.
Even if there is the presence of 100% accurate lie detection, two legal matters are definitely significant. These issues are the responsibility of the jury and obligatory examining of witnesses for genuineness. The assessment of witnesses and the reliability and power of the evidence are subjects for the jury and by permitting the scientific evidence; the court may be attacking the role of the jury. At least, there are concerns regarding whether this evidence possesses unnecessary impact or affects the judgments in court. The jury evaluates scientific evidence, intended to be presented in court, more greatly than their judgment as produced by their own logic, and may act that way purposely on the issue of truth. Assessing the reliability of witnesses has been preserved to be the main role of the jury and a determination that must depend on the evidence of the logic or senses of the jurors themselves, not to be substituted by professional evidence on truth.
Many concerns are brought about by the opportunity of letting witnesses, along with defendants, be examined for truth. Apart from Fifth Amendment that addresses that one can be required to give evidence against oneself, the question arises about if the jury or judge be permitted to consider a denial of a defendant to undergo such an assessment. As polygraph examinations are hardly permissible, the legal implications resulting from the accurate examination of defendants are in process of being tested, but using accurate and lie detection based on neuroscience, they become a promising approach. Problems of protection would be considered, as the application of brain imaging technology takes with it some quantity of risk. Concerns regarding privacy would be addressed and what more could be learned or what more could be addressed? Could an individual be required to respond to a subpoena while being examined for truthfulness? Evidently, issues abound, creating neuroscientific lie detection an efficient contender for future research and debate.
Cross-Cutting Legal Issues
Major cross-cutting issues that crop up in a range of contexts include intellectual property, privacy, discrimination, and ‘pre-formal’ applications of neuroscience, and these are important in analyzing the importance and effects of neuroscience developments in future criminal justice. Additionally, at the same time as science is advancing, the present condition of the law concerning neuroscience particularly is increasingly promising. Still, in so far as anti-discrimination acts can limit the way neuroscience methods are applied, or that intellectual property issues may possess a restrictive influence on research, some brief reflection of the possible effect of the law on neuroscience is as well suitable.
Discrimination
Discrimination is a concern together with modifying and monitoring techniques and the application of monitoring techniques, especially in predictive functions, might bring about the pigeonholing of kids, the restriction of opportunities, and various kinds of discrimination that arises in many cases. Likewise, inadequate access to modification technologies generates a rising split between those with access to developments and people without this access, producing a ‘neurological underclass.’
Both ideas tackled in the explanations about genetics are precisely very important relative to neuroscience. The idea of ‘exceptionalism’ comes first and is an issue that passing laws and particular rules for neuroscientific discrimination will bring about a public view that evidence, concerning their brains, is more determinative of their welfare and actions than it is actually. Distinguishing neuroscientific information for particular safety appears to show that a remarkably dominant quantity or kind of knowledge is present, hence exceptionalism. Therefore, while discrimination derived from neuroscientific understanding is a risk that legal and neuroscience groups must operate to lessen, it is not apparent that a new legal system precise to neuroscience must be produced or established. An alternative approach can reinforce obtainable anti-discriminatory laws and systems to incorporate discrimination derived from neuroscientific evidence or information.
One major approach to decrease the risk of discrimination derived from neuroscientific information is to control or limit cross-cutting legal issues to have an opportunity to access such information and create it accessible just as suitable for applications that the community believes or considers permissible. As a result, those distinctions offer issues of confidentiality and privacy which can be tackled effectively by using neuroscience techniques.
“Pre-formal” Usage
Since several applications of neuroscience that have been discussed in this paper are in ‘formal’ perspective, the pre-formal approach should be used to apply neuroscience in the legal system prior to criminal judgments. For instance, a defense counsel might present test outcomes to prosecutors to act as a pre-judgment discussion, looking for discharge, lessening of charges, or other kinds of results. Such applications would be fundamentally unreviewable and likely not to be presented to the public. While the precise state of these pre-formal applications is uncertain, it appears sensible that both neuroscientists and lawyers reflect the way these uses could be handled with approaches that are both scientifically and legally suitable. The legal and scientific societies can even desire to go so far as openly to discover such potential applications and to start a discussion on knowledge, standards, and scientifically suitable applications.
Intellectual Property Issues
Generally, neuroscience appears doubtful to provide particular challenges for intellectual property law. Somewhat, the concern can be necessary; it is about the likelihood that neuroscience patent could limit the advancement of derivative products or ‘downstream.’ A patent is a kind of property right provided to an inventor, which is also called the patent owner, providing the special right to the application of some invention for limited length. Some inventions may include manufacturing developments, chemical compounds, and mechanical tools, and the products that are produced through the patented invention are called ‘downstream’ products.
While the inventors gained through benefiting completely from the efforts of their labors, the whole community profits through involving the inventor to reveal the factors or information of the invention as the necessity of being rewarded a patent. This disclosure permits people to advance, modify and most importantly, develop the patented invention. A patent owner may protect or limit the application of the patented invention, for the period in which the holder is assigned the patent. Therefore, this restricts the progress of downstream products. The risk of limiting downstream product process is not limited to neuroscience patents but provided the point that these are inventions with possible applicability to people’s brains and their welfare, it can be a precisely critical field that should be considered.
Conclusion
Brain science is very important in addressing and attending criminal justice in the future. Most criminals have been assigned sentencing or punishments that they actually do not deserve. Neuroscience is very vital to be applied in judgments since it classifies individuals with their ability to understand right or wrong, and if they are in fact responsible for the actions or behaviors they are found to have committed.
Susceptibility or vulnerability to various behaviors of psychoactive substances, which may include cognitive reliance and improvement, seems to rely on people dissimilarities derived from environmental, genetic, and growth features that are experienced by many people in their lives. It is turning to be apparent that the future influence of neuroscience or brain science will be recognized through relations with different areas such as social and cognitive psychology, genomics, molecular biology, and physics. Therefore, research should be increased in the future to help and expand the developments in areas of neuroscience so that it will be more reliable and effective in the future. Inequalities, discrimination and other injustices within criminal justice will be eliminated if neuroscience techniques will be used to tackle some issues that arise in the court or when solving criminal cases.
Bibliography
Bear, MG, BT Connors, & MO Paradis, Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,Baltimore, MD, 2006.
Callender, J, Free Will and Responsibility: A Guide for Practitioners, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010.
Illes, JK, & BL Sahakian, The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Longstaff, A, Neuroscience, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, 2005.
Panksepp, J, Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications, National Academies Press, washington, DC, 2009.
Pockett, SK, WR Banks, & SP Gallagher, Does Consciousness Cause Behaviou, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006.
A correction system is one that sets high goals but nonetheless has problems that must be solved. The author of the article wants to familiarize the public with the problems of the correctional judicial system, its setbacks, the current state of affairs, and solutions for these issues. The attention is focused on the fact that even though the system is designed to lower the recidivism rate and help inmates in the future, rehabilitate, it is still ineffective.
One of the problems is the return rate of prisoners, which is increasing. The population of prisons is higher than ever, reaching 168,350 inmates, even though the cost attributed to the corrections is significant–$7 billion and still 66% of those released return within the next three years.
Another issue is that the system is very political and confusing, making it hard for politicians to come up with a clear-cut solution. Rehabilitation is also not working, as 25% of inmates reported having a drug or alcohol problem. The prison society itself is detrimental since the gangs formed inside usually continue their existence outside.
One of the solutions offered is to use more discretion in the release of the responsible inmates so that they feel rewarded and set an example for those behaving negatively. In order to not waste resources, apply more precise parole supervision for those who really need it—high-risk criminals. Also to use a harsher punishment for those who commit a crime during their parole or probation, instead of treating it as an administrative violation. An important solution is to provide programs that focus on rehabilitation and assimilation back into society, programs like education, help with substance abuse, and preparation for jobs outside of prison.
The challenging fact about this article is that even though the population of prisons is high, with 6.5 inmates per officer, compared to the nation’s 4.5, the escape rate is one of the lowest in the nation. Corrections officers are well paid compared to the rest but still, there is a 20% vacancy in staff. It is a known fact that the system is directed to filter out the most serious offenders but the surprising statistic is that only 5% of all crimes committed receive a prison sentence. The author of the article has clearly stated the problems of the system and solutions. The reward system for the inmates who behave responsibly is a good idea; it benefits the judicial system and the inmates themselves. The proposal to have better supervision of those who are on parole is a very effective solution. Inmates who are used to living in prison often don’t know how to act and where to start in society, not to mention the society’s stigma and prejudice towards the inmates, which makes their implementation back into society extremely difficult. More serious punishment for those who re-commit during their parole is definitely needed. It is outrageous that someone who has done wrong and is given a fair chance abuses it.
Rehabilitation and proper programs are the best ideas. Very often people who commit crimes are unaware of another life, without crime, depression, and violence. They are unable to imagine how to make a living without resorting to crime because they have grown up in this criminal culture and know no other way of life.
Education and job training are very important for every human being, no matter where they are.
Drawing on theories of moral panic and punitiveness, and relying on relevant contemporary examples, this paper purposes to critically discuss how politicization of criminal justice influences penal policy.
Perhaps the best theoretical approach that could best expound on politicization of criminal justice, a process through which the political class snatch the opportunities to make use of criminal justice issues to facilitate their endeavours (Blumstein, 2007), is the moral panic theory.
Stanley Cohen (1972) cited in Farmer (2010) is credited as the first person to use the phrase ‘moral panic’ to depict a situation where mainstream media and the police develop a twirl of respectable fear by focussing attention to a scenario, real or imagined, that threatens the values and interests of society. The main agenda of creating a moral panic, according to Farmer (2010), is to stimulate public anxiety with the hope of generating changes in critical areas such as policing and the administration of criminal justice.
Going by this theory, it can be suggested that politicians have mastered the art of creating a moral panic out of situations that do not call for such fear, but which they use to penetrate essential institutions, such as the criminal justice, to influence the penal policy to their benefits.
Although it cannot be denied that terrorism is a global threat, politicians in high positions of influence in society backed up by the popular media and other ‘right-thinking people’, employed an overly stylized and stereotypical demeanour to influence the community on taking moral positions and making judgements that the Muslim faith and terrorism cannot be separated.
The result of such stereotyping under the pretext of war on terror is that, presently, “…Muslim immigrant communities are in crisis in the secular West confronting the conditionality of their citizenship, even in the second generation” (Humphrey, 2007 p. 10). But what is more interesting is the fact that politicians used the perceived threat of terrorism to infiltrate the justice system and introduce policies that view legitimate Muslim immigrants as potential threat to national security.
Consequently, instead of the policymaking process in criminal justice taking place at many different levels as indicated by Ryan (1999), the politicians hijacked the whole process to introduce morally questionable policies through the backdoor.
The war on drugs, the threat of ‘superpredators’, and the August 2011 riots in Britain after a black man was supposedly shot by police, are all examples of situations which have triggered moral panics, but which we have seen politicians and ‘like-minded people’ react viscerally, impulsively, and mechanistically rather than assume a reasoned and informed policy approach to criminal justice which involves all stakeholders, including the public (Ryan, 1999).
The second framework that could be used to illuminate the politicization of criminal justice and subsequent control and manipulation of the penal policy is the theory of punitiveness. According to Green (2009), the term ‘punitiveness’ is used by many criminological scholars “…to indicate the presence of harsh public attitudes toward offenders” (p. 519).
Consequently, it can be argued that punitive dispositions among people, particularly those in positions of power and influence, can be intrinsically associated with specific fears and concerns about possible moral and social breakdown to a point where the actors are, actively or passively, forced to make ad hoc, impulsive, and arbitrary policies, which may not necessarily be reasoned or but which are taken to preserve the popular discourse – at least according to the actors (Blumstein, 2007).
While Nelken (2009) notes that many countries are characterized by increasing punitiveness in their criminal justice systems, Ryan (1999) observes that this trend is being stimulated by penal populism, which is being facilitated by political entities such as the New Labour (implying politicians).
The 2011 Britain riots illuminate the increasingly punitive character of criminal justice policies taking shape in the U.K., but which can be attributed to the political class in its attempt to irrationally deal with perceived moral and social breakdown rather than involving a reasoned and considered analysis of what transpired to ignite the riots.
The many convictions that have transpired ever since the outbreak of the riots in August give credence to the fact that Britain is following in the footsteps of neo-liberal societies, such as the U.S., “…who have the highest prison rates because they follow social and economic policies that lead to what they describe as exclusionary cultural attitudes towards [their] deviant and marginalized fellow citizens” (Nelken, 2009 p. 295).
It is important to note that it is these exclusionary cultural attitudes as described by Nelken (2009) that have served to enhance criminality among the Black youth in the American society (Farmer, 2010), as they are looked upon by the predominantly white leadership as people who are bent on committing crime.
It should not escape mention that the recent riots witnessed in Britain were triggered by similar exclusionary cultural attitudes in that the victim, a member of the black community, was shot due to perceived gun crime.
This notwithstanding, we have seen how the political leadership have used this and other previous cases to make misconstrued political appeal linked to acting tough on crime, but which have nevertheless materialized in making Britain’s. Judiciary to also ‘act tough’ on the rioters by handing them heavy sentences due to the temptations that the political class triggered when they knowingly acted to arouse the public’s mood and attitudes about the crime committed during the riots. The above insights demonstrate how the politicization of criminal justice influences penal policy.
List of References
Blumstein, A (2007). The Roots of Punitiveness in a Democracy. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention, 8 (1), pp. 2-16.
Farmer, S (2010). Criminality of Black Youth in Inner-City Schools: ‘Moral Panic’, Moral Imagination, and Moral Formation. Ethnicity & Education, 13 (3), pp. 367-381.
Green, D.A (2009). Feeding Wolves: Punitiveness and Culture. European Journal of Criminology, 6 (6), pp. 517-536.
Humphrey, M (2007). Culturalising the Abject: Islam, Law, and Moral Panic in the West. Australian Journal of Social Sciences, 42 (1), pp. 9-25.
Nelken, D (2009). Comparative Criminal Justice: Beyond Ethnocentrism and Relativism. European Journal of Criminology, 6 (4), pp. 291-311.
Ryan, M (1999). Penal Policy Making towards the Millennium: Elites and Populists; New Labour and the New Criminology. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 27, pp. 1-22.
Criminology is the study that investigates criminal behaviors concerning an individual and a society. It covers the cause, control and nature of the behavior. It is a field related to all disciplines. As a study, criminology investigates relations among human beings and their activities in the world. Criminology has several research areas. As a study, it explores the causes, magnitudes and incidence of crime. It also gains capacity with the regulations and reaction of crime from the society and the government. Criminology depends on quantitative techniques to explore the circulation and origins of crime. Quantitative methods are systematic and practical research procedures of social phenomena via different techniques. In criminology, quantitative methods have provided the key research methods for reviewing the causes and distribution of crime. They offer numerous ways to attain data that is beneficial to a given society. In the investigation, quantitative methods involve key research forms. The forms of research include evaluation, survey and field research. This research assists criminologists in the process of finding effective and dependable data. The data obtained is sampled and then used to make key declarations about the matter being investigated. There are currently several types of data used to measure crime (Maddan, 2010).
Crime is the violation of laws that forbids it and permit punishment for its commission. In general, there are four methods to measure crime to get quantitative data. One of the methods is observation. Observation as a method is not the best way to obtain information since it does not give a reliable measure of the crime. The second method is surveys of offenders. A survey of offenders is a convenient method to measure data. The advantage of this method is that information not yet reported to authorities can be obtained. Another advantage is that crimes not recorded or reported to authorities can be discovered. Assessment of offenders avails data about them along with their victims. A Survey of offenders exposes the extent of crime perpetrated by an offender. They are helpful, particularly for victimless crimes. The third method is victimization reports. Victimization reports are established on police measures of crime. They are mainly centered on reported crimes. In normal circumstances, knowing the depth of crime is a tough task. Therefore, the various methods are combined to obtain effective data (Hagan, 2008).
Criminal justice is mainly a governmental system that is meant to maintain low levels of crime to stop crime entirely. As a system, it sustains civilization in the society and political world. The main purpose of criminal justice is to implement the standards of conduct essential to defend the community and individuals. In its mandate, criminal justice offers a system of rules applied by a set of institutions. This system consists of three major sections which are the adjudication, the legislative and the corrections agency. Through the primary parts, laws are created and implemented through courts. Criminal justice is completed through criminal justice research (Maddan, 2010).
Criminal justice research is the key solution to successful integrity in criminal cases. It is achieved through criminology by social scientists and criminologists. An example of criminal justice research is the research done on homicides. Homicide is the act of a person taking the life of another person. A form of homicide is murder, which is the prohibited killing of another human. Homicide is not always a punishable act in criminal law (Geberth, 1996).
The purpose of the research study done on homicide was because of the high rates of homicides in the United States. The research was done to find the forms, causes, consequences and incidence of homicide as a crime. The research was to identify the key methods of homicide, their sources, what penalties they bring to individuals and society, and the frequency of homicide occurrence (Hagan, 2008).
The research study design was mainly a form of research in the humanities. It involved the exploration of the details and issues that surround homicide. In this form of research, context is a significant factor. The environmental element can be historical, social, traditional, governmental, or ethnic. This method involves the social scientists and criminologists investigating the background, environment and setting of a homicide. In a homicide setting, the first task for researchers is to do primary research. The researchers are to source from documents and other data. The other task is to interpret the data to understand it and have discussions about it.
The researchers used victims as an operational definition. The victims of homicide were used to provide the information needed in the research. Part of the information was gathered from direct questioning while the other data was obtained through the filling of forms by the victims. The victims were interrogated and cross-examined by the researchers (Hagan, 2008).
Inductive logic is a form of reasoning. It deduces key information from comprehensive examples. It suggests the truth of a matter but does not confirm it. This form of reasoning reflects more on generalization of matters than individual instances. Inductive logic is based on the factor of relation. It points out that conclusions can be made from given properties. This perspective gives an overview of a matter and a general impression. An example of inductive reasoning in homicide is that 31% of homicides globally occur in the Americas. This is a generalization on the homicide rate since the occurrence of homicide is unpredictable anywhere in the world. Inductive logic contrasts with deductive logic. Deductive logic (known otherwise as deductive reasoning) is the way of reasoning from a single or multiple general accounts entailing what is accepted to achieve a conclusion that is logically assured. This method outputs a detailed conclusion from a general principle. Deductive logic gives the researcher a key aspect of identifying a solution. Logical deduction links statements that a dispute claims will justify or induce a conclusion. An example of deduction logic is the fact that homicides were mainly committed by strangers. This is true and is supported by the data collected (Geberth, 1996).
The research study on homicide is qualitative research. Qualitative research is a process of inquiry engaged in various academic disciplines. It is employed in social sciences and other contexts. This procedure prefers the need to focus on small samples rather than large samples. In homicide research, the characteristics and methods of qualitative research are evident. This research on homicide was qualitative research since it implemented the use of interviews and discussions.
In homicide research, the guideline system for solving the problem was to use various methods, tools, techniques and give tasks in phases. The methodology was to analyze the principles of rules, methods and postulates engaged by the homicide cases. The research population involved individuals from the general public who had been victims of homicide. The sampling methods varied with the quality and nature of the crime, availability of information about crime and the operational or costs concerns. A set of entities regarding statistical interferences were drawn based on a random sample obtained from the population. They included methods such as, simple random sampling, systematic sampling and stratified sampling (Hagan, 2008).
The criminal justice research brought about several key findings. One of the key findings was that crime and race have a relationship in cases concerning homicide. It was noted that many homicides were committed in main cities, and homicides, where the offender and the victim are not determined, were on the rise and that many serial murder cases continue to be unknown to the police (Geberth, 1996).
The author of the criminal justice research concluded that homicide as a crime is a serious offense against humanity. Homicide degrades human dignity and grave humiliation on human beings. The author recommends collaboration between the police and the public to improve security, developing a team that would obtain information concerning homicides, and improving the sharing of information and technology. These recommendations are key factors that can assist the police and the public to reduce the cases of homicides. With the enlightenment of the society on this crime of homicide, the public will have the knowledge and clarification of the crime and learn ways of reducing it. This research study was done in good detail. The aspect of social learning about the information relating to homicide is a key factor to improve the dignity of people, and also helps in reducing the high rates of homicide (Hagan, 2008).
References
Geberth, V. J. (1996). Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques, Third Edition. United States.
Hagan, F. E. (2008). Introduction to criminology: Theories, methods, and criminal behavior. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Maddan, Sean, Ph.d. (2010). Criminology and Criminal Justice: Theory Research Methods and Statistics. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
“What do you think about a career?” Briefly explain the importance of the career for modern society.
Introduction
A successful career is one of the most important aspects of the life of any individual who wants to play a significant role in the functioning and evolution of a certain community. Moreover, it often serves as one of the major landmarks that impact a person and establishes his/her relations with the surrounding people.
For this reason, I believe that criminal justice career could help me to develop my personal and professional qualities and become successful. Therefore, it could be rather challenging, but its importance could hardly be overestimated.
Body
The purpose of the presentation: The given presentation is devoted to the most important aspects related to the criminal justice career and role specialists of this sort play in any community (Toch & Magurie, 2014).
The unique importance of criminal justice specialists. The modern legal system depends on people who chose criminal justice as their occupation greatly. They create the basis for the preservation of order and inevitability of punishment for lawbreakers and other offenders.
We should perfectly realize the fact that our citizens could feel secured because of the efficient functioning of the legal system (Justice & Meares, 2014). Besides, many people are working in a given sphere. Thus, criminal justice majors contribute to the increased efficiency of the given sector and improved outcomes.
Outline the main tasks of a criminal justice specialist
A person who chooses this occupation as his/her career should perfectly realize the fact that numerous complex tasks should be accomplished to attain success and preserve justice.
Explain the main reasons for the appearance of my interest in the given sphere
I believe that the complexity of tasks and challenges that a specialist of this sort faces contributes to the unique importance of the given career. The work of a criminal justice specialist might be rather difficult sometimes; however, the security of close people, citizens, and preservation of the public peace are the best rewards for a person who chooses this occupation.
Modern demands to the criminal justice specialist
The above-mentioned complexity of tasks preconditions the existence of specific demands to any specialist working in the given sphere. He/she should incorporate such qualities as competence, deep knowledge, outstanding personal and analytic skills combined with the readiness to face injustice (Edelstein, 2016).
Conclusion
Altogether, we should admit the great importance and complexity of criminal justice career. An individual who wants to work in the given sphere should be ready to overcome different challenges and contribute to the increased efficiency of the legal system. As for me, I feel that I am interested in the given issue and want to engage in it.
References
Edelstein, A. (2016). Rethinking conceptual definitions of the criminal career and serial criminality. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 62-71. Web.
Justice, B., & Meares, T. (2014). How the criminal justice system educates citizens. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651(1), 159-177. Web.
Toch, H., & Magurie, K. (2014). Public opinion regarding crime, criminal justice, and related topics. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 424-444. Web.
Criminal justice is implemented via a strictly defined set of steps. Following the established steps is important since slight inconsistencies may result in an appeal to a higher-ranking instance. Pretrial decisions also influence the trial and the overall case progression (Bechtel et al., 2017). Therefore, studying the processes that take place before the trial is important for understanding the overall delivery of criminal justice. In total, pretrial procedures comprise five steps: initial appearances, discovery, plea bargaining, preliminary hearing, and pre-trial motions.
Initial Appearance
The starting point of pretrial procedures is the arrest of a suspected offender. For the apprehension to be lawful, it has to be based on a reasonable suspicion by police officers. Once the person has been arrested, they have to appear for the initial hearing, also known as arraignment (Office of the United States Attorneys, n.d.b). The magistrate acquaints the defendant about their charges, rights, and upcoming trial. The defendant is also provided with a defense attorney who will represent them in court.
Discovery
Before the trial begins, the defense attorney and the prosecutor must prepare for it. This stage presupposes the collection of evidence, its analysis, and the search for witnesses. It should also be noted that witnesses are not limited to people who oversaw the crime, as testimonies can also be given by individuals with expertise in the concerned area and even acquaintances (Office of the United States Attorneys, n.d.a). Meanwhile, the defendant is notified about the materials as well as evidence that will be used against them in court.
Plea Bargaining
In some cases, the defendant may be offered to make a bargain. It transpires when there is sufficient evidence for the Government to view the arrested person as guilty. The subsequent bargain requires the defendant to plead guilty in exchange for avoiding trial altogether or reducing their final sentence (Office of the United States Attorneys, n.d.c). The bargain may not be offered, but the defendant has to accept the terms to take effect.
Preliminary Hearing
Before an actual trial can begin, the defendant has to plead not guilty. Preliminary hearings are held to sort out cases that have insufficient evidence of the defendant’s guilt Office of the United States Attorneys, n.d.d). Depending on the outcome of this proceeding, the trial can be scheduled if the judge is convinced, or the prosecution may cease entirely if the evidence is refuted.
Pre-Trial Motions
The final step before the trial can commence filing motions. These proposals are issued to the court by both the prosecution and defense. Each motion is a specific request to make a certain decision before the actual trial can begin (Office of the United States Attorneys. (n.d.e). Motions range from requests to suppress evidence to attempts to dismiss the charges altogether. In any case, the outcome of motions is decided solely by judges.
Conclusion
After the initial appearance, discovery, plea bargaining, preliminary hearing, and pre-trial motions have passed, the trial can begin. It should also be noted that not all of these steps are mandatory, as certain proceedings, such as preliminary hearings and plea bargaining, can be skipped. Nevertheless, the rest of the pre-trial procedures are important since they lay the essential foundation for the trial.