A primary dilemma encountered in societies is how to establish correct procedures of societal control, providing security, and enforcing correct standards of order. The law forms the fundamental basis of defining all societal undertakings. Authorities play the role of enforcing the laws that protect individual rights. In addition, the rule of law helps to differentiate dictatorial from egalitarian societies (Scheb, 2008, p.3).
Criminal procedures
Criminal procedures help to protect suspected criminals from indiscriminate treatment and harassment from law enforcing agents, hence protect suspects’ and defendants’ constitutional rights. All law enforcing agents must follow these procedures from the original encounter with suspects, arrest, investigation, trial, sentencing, and appeal. The law guarantees individual liberties from unwarranted arrests and ransacking. In addition, it guarantees the security of people in any environment, even if suspected (Gales, 2009, Para. 1-4). Scheb further adds that all law-enforcing officers must have a firm basis for conducting searches. In addition, arrestees must permit officers to ransack their property, unless in tricky situations (2008, p.8).
Different municipalities and federal governments have varying crime codes. These codes define the conduct of its citizens and law enforcing bodies in combating crime. Failure by the law enforcement agents to follow such procedures may cause loss of evidence, hence hindering justice. To ensure that no evidence is lost, officers should have arrest warrants, unless the officer strongly believes that, the suspect has committed a criminal offense (Legal information institute, 2009, Para. 1-5).
A warrant is a document that gives police officers rights to search and apprehend suspects. The fourth amendment as dictated by the Supreme Court never conditions police officers to have warrants during all arrests. However, it guides law enforcement bodies’ conduct; on how and when to conduct searches. In addition, the arrest can be made without a warrant if, a person commits the offense in the presence of a law enforcement officer. An unacceptable arrest does not guarantee fair prosecution. This is because; the use of wrong arrest procedures invalidates some evidence (Criminal procedure, 2009, Para. 1-3). Officer Smith was right when he followed Radley’s car, due to it being not common in that locality. In addition, he applied the correct questioning procedures. This is because he requested Radley to interrogate him, which he went ahead and did.
Fundamental rights in criminal procedures include freedom from perverse ransacking, freedom from harsh punishment, a fast trial, rights from jeopardy, conflict with opposing witnesses, and self-blame. In addition, all individuals have the right to have a trial by a jury and get help from counsel (Criminal procedure act, 1977, p. 23-27). By checking Radley’s car without his consent, Officer Smith violated Radley’s rights. Although the officer lacked satisfaction from what Radley had told him, he had no right to check his car without his permission. This is because, although smith found some evidence that linked to the crimes that had been committed, there was a likelihood of evidence invalidation. If Smith was dissatisfied with answers from Radley, he was to seek permission from Radley first. As gale argues, the state does not permit any officer to search an automobile, unless there is reasonable suspicion. He further adds searches conducted without enough suspicion, go against the fourth amendment.
For example under the vehicle search requirements, police officers have the authority to search vehicles if they have a strong conviction that the vehicle is carrying materials that will give clues on specific crimes. This is because vehicles are in motion and the majority of drivers lack privacy (Gales, 2009, Para. 14-16).
When officer smith consulted the dispatcher on any crimes reported and whether Radley had an arrest warrant, the only feedback he got was on t burglaries committed. In addition, the dispatcher gave him evidence that linked the tools that Radley was carrying. Although he had no arrest warrant, he had the right to arrest him due to suspicion. Smith never explained to Radley why he was arresting him, which was wrong. In addition, Smith never questioned Radley on why he was carrying the tools before apprehending him. As Orfield argues such arrests, cause a lot of inconvenience to motorists depending on duties that await them in case they are not burglars. He further argues, law-enforcing agents, must thoroughly interview the suspects if they are carrying no dangerous weapons. This helps officers to make decisions on whether to arrest the suspects or not (2005, p. 33-34).
In addition, the arrestee must receive the Miranda warnings from the law-enforcing agent before the arrest. The warnings accord the suspect rights to call for advocates and remain quiet. The warnings help in collecting evidence from arrestees when taken into custody (Criminal procedure, 2009, Para. 2). Smith’s approach was wrong because at some point the case against Radley may lack evidence
Conclusion
In conclusion, for charges against individuals to be justifiable, all law-enforcing agents must follow correct criminal procedures. This helps to ensure that all evidences are important in supporting prosecution. Smith never followed the required procedures in checking and arresting radley. This jeopardizes the quality of the case, because the prosecution may lack a firm basis for arguing.
Requirements for search and arrest warrants & how they relate to probable cause
The chosen article for this essay is ‘SCOTUS: Drug dog’s sniff was ‘up to snuff,’ establishing probable cause to search truck” (Weiss, 2013). This article talks about a situation, which requires a search because of probable cause. According to this article, a German shepherd dog named Aldo, which has been trained to sniff drugs, gives an alert towards a truck whose license plate had expired.
The court justified the dog’s actions, and ruled that there was no need for a field history to be established. Just like any other case of probable cause, the question at hand was whether the alert brought up by the dog, viewed under any reasonable person’s imaginations, would offer suspicion for drugs evidence.
As it was found, the suspicious truck which Aldo was sending the alert about carried pseudo-ephedrine pills and methamphetamine. Aldo sniff was unquestionable given that the dog had been through training, and had been taken through a course for the detection of narcotic drugs (Weiss, 2013). Therefore, it was evident that before evaluating cases dealing with probable cause, courts scrutinize entirely the circumstances which lead to it.
Search warrants are normally issued by the judge. For a search and arrest warrants to be issued, the requirements include that the officer produces a probability cause, which justifies the search. In some cases, sworn statements or affidavits are also required in support of the probable cause (Goodman & Waksman, 2010).
Another requirement is a clear description of the particulars that will be searched and what will be seized. The judge thoroughly affirms all possible circumstances before issuing a search or arrest warrant. For instance, the case in this particular article, the judge ruled out the need for a history check based on the fact that the dog had undergone a thorough training on the check on narcotics and that it had its teeth inspected by an authentic organization (Weiss, 2013).
The judge is mandated to restrict search warrants if the law is contravened. According to the fourth amendment, the officer does not need a warrant, but rather evidence to prove the presence of a crime. The reasonableness of a crime also counts when it comes to release of a search warrant. This is as evidenced in the article, as a sniff is justified to be an instinct that would arouse suspicion unto any reasonable person.
Exceptions to warrant requirements
There are certain exceptions to warrant requirements. These include when a person is going through a lawful arrest; under such a circumstance, the person may have his or her immediate surrounding checked for the sake of safety.
The exclusion is referred to as plain view exemption. Warrants are never provided for when capturing evidence because legitimate police officers can check from their stand points. In cases where consent has been issued by someone in authority, warrants are not required (Goodman & Waksman, 2010). For instance, the wife of a suspect may show the officers where they may find the suspect. Another exception is the stop and frisk.
A reasonable suspicion, which is slightly more than the usual suspicion, and slightly less than probable cause offers a reason to stop and frisk a person who is believed to be dangerous or armed. The other exclusion is the automobile one that provides no warrant should be issued to search a vehicle that is suspected to contribute to crime because vehicles are not static. There is also an exception where the suspected materials of crime can easily be made to disappear; for instance, drugs (Goodman & Waksman, 2010).
References
Goodman, D., &. Waksman D. M. (2010). The search and seizure handbook (3rd edition ed.). Upper saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
One of the forces driving change in the provision of security services is technology. In the recent years, the practices of forensic science, criminology, and security management have become reliant on technology.
One of the interesting applications of technology to crime prevention is the use of cameras. Currently, many cities rate their security preparedness by the number of CCTV cameras installed in their jurisdiction (Holmes, 2005). This paper examines the merits of CCTV surveillance, its impact on constitutional rights, and its effects on crime control.
Advantages and Disadvantages of CCTV Cameras
CCTV technology is an improvement of the use of video cameras for surveillance. Their use dates back to several decades ago. Their significance to crime prevention comes from their increasing use throughout the world. After 9/11, many public safety authorities decided to install CCTV cameras for public surveillance. Prior to that, the cameras had been mainly used to secure high security installations and not for general public surveillance (Robb, 1980). The main advantages of the cameras are as follows.
CCTV cameras keep a record of events that, at times, prove critical to the resolution of crime (Holmes, 2005). The fact that the events captured by the CCTV cameras can act as evidence makes them very useful in the criminal justice system. Second, CCTV cameras can provide full time surveillance without the need for breaks or rest, as compared to human agents.
In addition, the cameras will maintain focus on an area of interest for as long as the services are required. The third advantage of CCTV cameras is that they make it possible to keep a record of events which can later be analyzed for trends.
However, the cameras have significant disadvantages. First, it is impossible to keep track of all the CCTV footage collected in a given period (Robb, 1980).
A review of CCTV footage only happens when there is an issue of interest. For instance, local police are likely to review the footage after the occurrence of a crime to find out what happened. Second, CCTV cameras usually have a limited range of coverage. This means that for the effective coverage of a large area, very many cameras must be installed. This increases the management costs, which may not be justifiable.
The third disadvantage of CCTV cameras is that they cannot detect crime. They are a passive element of the security system and require a human analyst for effectiveness (Holmes, 2005). The fourth disadvantage associated with CCTV cameras is that they often lack sound recording devices. This becomes very important in cases where the cameras record a meeting that is of interest to law enforcement agencies. In such a case, the cameras can only prove that the people captured met.
Effects CCTV Cameras on Constitutional Rights
The three main concerns relating to the continued use of CCTV cameras are as follows. First, there is a concern that CCTV usage impinges against the fourth amendment rights that shield US citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Robb, 1980, p. 1). CCTV footage allows law enforcement officers to collect data on the activities of various individuals in areas with CCTV surveillance. This can qualify as unreasonable search. In this regard, the use of the footage captured by CCTV can violate individual rights.
Second, the use of CCTV cameras impinges on individual privacy rights (Zalman, 2011). The basic motivation behind the installation of CCTV footage is to deter crime. This necessitates the installation of the cameras in places where a crime is likely to occur. The result is that the cameras must be installed in the places where they affect the privacy of law-abiding citizens because criminals look for secluded places to carry out crimes.
The third constitutional impact of CCTV cameras is that they may limit the enjoyment of the freedom of speech and association (Zalman, 2011). In places where the cameras have sound recording capabilities, they can be a barrier affecting the free interaction of people. In this case, private conversations with friends and associates can end up in the hands of law enforcement agencies.
Effects of CCTV Cameras on the Efficiency of the Criminal Justice System
The main effect of CCTV cameras on the efficiency of the criminal justice system is that they have a deterrent effect on crime (Robb, 1980). Criminals tend to avoid places with CCTV cameras because of the risk of identification by law enforcement agents. In the case of organized crime, CCTV cameras increase the planning requirements. Criminals must find the ways of hiding their identities in case a CCTV camera records their activities.
The second impact of CCTV cameras on crime control is that they increase the confidence of the public in the security efforts put in place by the security agencies. Increased confidence by the public results in fewer opportunities for criminals to commit crimes. The overall effect is that the presence of CCTV cameras increases the sense of security in a given place.
The third impact of CCTV cameras on crime control is that they make the identification of criminals easy. This makes it simple to process criminals through the criminal justice system. Successful prosecution of criminals also acts as a deterrent for further activities by other criminals. This means that the presence of CCTV cameras makes it easier to manage crime in populated areas.
Summary of Findings
The key findings associated with the use of CCTV cameras are as follows. First, the use of CCTV cameras impinges on some of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States. This situation arises from the conflict between allowing people to enjoy all their constitutional rights and the need to keep track of criminals in various communities. Second, there are clear advantages of the use of CCTV cameras.
Their presence acts as deterrence to criminal activity. They also provide a reliable record of events and can be a very important source of evidence in a criminal case. Third, CCTV cameras can increase the chances of successful conviction of criminals, which in turn discourages further crime.
Recommendations
The main recommendations arising from the discussions above are as follows. First, the use of CCTV cameras for surveillance must continue. The absence of these cameras can lead to serious deterioration of national security.
Their role in deterring crime and in supporting cases makes them an indispensable part of the criminal justice system. Second, there need to be national laws put in place and reviewed often in light of the changing security environment. This comes from the realization that it is very easy for law enforcement agencies to overstep their mandate when it comes to the use of CCTV cameras.
A national law should determine the persons allowed to access the CCTV footage collected by law enforcement agencies and the footage filmed by private firms. In addition, the law should prescribe lawful uses of CCTV footage. If the surveillance targets a particular person or group, law enforcement agents should get a warrant similar to search warrants needed to search private property.
References
Holmes, D. (2005). Communication Theory: Media, Technology, and Society. London, UK: SAGE.
Robb, C. G. (1980). Police Use of CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) Surveillance Constitutional Implications and Proposed Regulations. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 13(3), 571-602.
Zalman, M. (2011). Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Many people are not aware of the actions that take place before the real trial exercise in a criminal case. The police arrests suspects and present them to the prosecutor who decides on whether to press charges or not. However, before any procedures, the state is obliged to give an attorney to persons accused of a crime. The attorney offers counsel and protection to the defendant throughout the trial exercise.
The first thing for most criminal cases is the plea bargaining exercise, where, the defense attorney may advise the defendant to plead guilty in exchange for reduced charges or lighter sentences. In fact, 90% of the criminal cases are disposed at this stage. However, defendants who do not plead guilty of the charges are jailed and the prosecutor proceeds to file charges against the suspect in a lower court (Farmer & Pecorino, 2004).
The prosecutor uses the information and the indictment documents to file charges. While filing charges, the prosecutor is obliged to disclose exculpatory evidence, which seeks to exonerate the suspect of guilt. Any prosecutor who decides to suppress such material evident violates the law.
The prosecutor discloses all the exculpatory evidence possessed by the police, investigators, witnesses, or the crime labs. The whole exercise is in line with the prosecutor’s search for justice, where, exculpatory evidence is regarded as material if it shows some form of credibility. The prosecutors have the obligation to use the material evidence to defend the criminal, failure to which, the suspect would seek some lawsuit later. In a stabbing case, for example, a suspect within the murder scene may be arrested because of having blood traces.
The police may go ahead and interview a witness who may claim to have witnessed the stabbing. If the witnesses claim that the accused is not guilty because they witnessed a different person committing the crime, the witnesses’ statement presents the exculpatory evidence. The police may doubt the witness’s statement or not, however, the prosecutor must inform the accuser and his or her attorney of the statement. The whole process ensures there is fairness as exculpatory information blocks the possibilities seeking some lawsuit.
As evident from the discussions, prosecutors have the greatest authority in handling any criminal case as they have the final word in every phase of the conviction process. The criminal justice system empowers the prosecutors to decide of the criminal charges to file, when to file the charges, when to offer a plea bargain or when to start an investigation.
However, some prosecutors may abuse their authority and offer unfair verdicts. Whenever prosecutors abuse their authority, they deny the accused of their constitutional rights, and thus, their actions are regarded as prosecutorial misconducts.
In some cases, some prosecutors may make politically motivated prosecutions or suppress evidence that favors the defendant whenever they feel that the defendant is guilty. Personal judgments have prevailed from time to time, where; prosecutors hide evidence that would prove the innocence of the accused (McFaden, 2001). In the stabbing case for example, the prosecutors may allow the use of perjured testimony and such actions deny the defendant of the right to have fair trials.
The jailed defendant’s first court appearance happens in the lower court, where judges have no authority to hold a trial. Therefore, the judges have to give a stringent analysis of the criminal record to determine if indeed there are legal grounds to support the arrest (Farmer & Pecorino, 2004).
The judge informs the defendant of the charges, explains the defendant’s rights with regard to the charges, and sets a bail if necessary. The judges would set a date for the defendant to appear for trials if the alleged facts are somewhat worthwhile. The defendant may opt to deposit the bail to be released from custody and show up on the trial date or stay in jail until the trial date.
However, not all defendants can get pretrial release as some may be too dangerous to the society, or others may be too poor to afford the bail. It is noteworthy that suspects with prior records of violence may not qualify to receive a bail. The above-mentioned pretrial procedures take place to ensure that justice prevails in the whole exercise; however, it is evident that the bail discriminates against the poor especially when judges set cash bails at very high levels.
From the discussions, it is noteworthy that the legal system is of paramount importance as offended citizens run to the courts for refuge. With all due respect, the courts should ensure they win the trust of all the citizens by eliminating all forms of prosecutorial misconducts and displaying the highest level of integrity. It is noteworthy that prosecutorial misconducts have often made the public to have a negative perception of the justice system.
When the misconducts are ignored repeatedly the courts weakens its ability to offer justice to the citizens. Prosecutorial misconducts lower the integrity of the courts. Therefore, the prosecutor is obliged to disclose material evidence in favor of the suspect in any criminal prosecution. Exculpatory evidence should be used to identify cases in which a police officer has given false statements. Any prosecutor found guilty of any form of prosecutorial misconducts should be removed from office immediately.
References
Farmer, A. & Pecorino, P. (2004). Pretrial settlement with fairness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54 (3), 287-296.
McFaden, C. P. (2001). Prosecutorial misconduct. The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 14(4), 1211-1228.
By the year 2003, over 300 million persons lived in the US.100 million of these persons were made up of the minority communities. Notably, a number of the minority community members are not aware of the existing criminal procedure policies.
Regardless of whether the minority or the majority communities are opposed to or support the criminal procedure policy models, the truth of the matter is the regulations govern all people, communities, states, regions, and the federal government equally (Dressler & Michaels, 2010). Without them, the US would be in anarchy and injustice would be prevalent.
This article illustrates the likeness and dissimilarities between the Due Process of law and the crime control models. Equally, evaluations of how the two models have affected the American criminal procedure policies are highlighted. The 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 14th amendments to the constitution are assessed. In the final part, the appropriateness of the Bill of Rights to the states with respect to the 14th Amendment is illustrated.
The two models contain legal principles, which are useful to all the divisions of the criminal justice system, judicial employees, and the communities (Ashworth & Redmayne, 2005). The Due process of law centers on safeguarding the individuals’ rights and liberties.
To achieve this, the Due process of law lessens the law enforcers’ powers, restricts laws, and mandates every expert to tolerate and pursue the official procedures when initiating a criminal case. On the contrary, the crime control model’s main purpose is to safeguard the society by executing an efficient ways of law enforcement using a number of tactics and the trial of criminals.
The models prohibit law enforcement officers from applying individual attitudes, unfairness, and discrimination in criminal justice situations. A major dissimilarity between the two forms is that the crime control model presumes that an individual is culpable before he or she is arbitrated.
On the other hand, the other model presupposes that an individual is blameless until he or she is confirmed accountable. Similarly, the crime control model endeavors to transfer the suspects through the criminal justice system in the same manner a conveyor belt transfers goods from one system to the other. Through this, it shuns the use of plea bargains and petition by all possible means. The conveyor belt philosophy lessens court clogging enabling them to adjudicate more cases.
The public sees this as a chief benefit because eliminates and penalizes a large number of criminals in an appropriate way. Its opponents perceive the Due process of law as an impediment that slows the trials because it provides the suspects with redundant protections. The proponents of the Due process of Law perceive it as a risk reducer of errors because the model endeavors not to penalize the blameless by thwarting and eradicating corruption and favoritisms in every situation.
The US has experienced periods in the past that enabled each of the two models to dictate the criminal justice system. For example, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and the 14th amendments have been recreated and shaped by the landmark rulings in the past (Hudson, 2002). With respect to the US constitution, the fourth amendment presents a range of vital protections.
The amendment assures all persons the right to be protected with respect to their privacy, houses, and papers. Law enforcement officers ought to institute credible grounds before acquiring a merit to search and seize or detention. In a landmark ruling named County of Riverside v. McLaughin (1991), A US court ruled that taking into custody a person for more than 48 hours after being apprehended without probable grounds is an infringement of his or her 4th Amendment Rights.
The fourth Amendment was approved because there was a need to reduce the abuse of the law enforcers during the American Revolution. Today, the police officers are required to acquire a warrant of arrest and warrant of seizure from the magistrates Law enforcement officers before any apprehending anyone.
The Fifth Amendment is considered as a vital protection offered to all Americans. Unlike other amendments, the Fifth Amendment mandates the law enforcers to notify the accused of some assured constitutional protections.
Through this, law enforcers are mandated to inform suspects prior to a custodial questionings are undertaken that they have the right to remain quiet. By doing so, the suspects are stopped from giving the police officers with self-incriminating proofs. Furthermore, law enforcement officers ought to notify the suspects that they have rights to access legal representation when they are being questioned.
On the occasion when a suspect cannot meet the expense of the legal counsel, the state lawyer will represent him or her free of charge. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment safeguards an individual from being arbitrated twice or the same offense. Through this, it safeguards the Due Process of Law. A landmark ruling that had significant effects on this amendment was Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
The Sixth Amendment warrants a suspect the right to a prompt trial, the right to be arbitrated by a judge, the right to be educated about the accusations brought forward, the right to interrogate all eyewitnesses, and the right of have an attorney. A landmark case that had tremendous effects on the Sixth amendment was Smith v. Hooey (1969).
In the case, the suspect had been imprisoned for 7 years. On a petition to the US Court, the defendant asserted that the state had infringed on his Sixth Amendment Right to prompt trial. Leading to the petition, the court dropped the allegations because the state had failed to prosecute the case in time.
With respect to the constitution, the 14th Amendment is relevant to all persons, in spite of state decrees and dealings. The 14th amendment has features of the Bill of Rights (Levy, 2000). This safeguard is perceived as a guarantee by the US Government to treat all persons in the same way.
The amendment offers equivalent rights to all persons but not equivalent protections. These rights are only relevant to all local governments. Before 14th amendment, the public was solitary safeguarded from the federal government. After the amendment, persons were protected from the federal government, the states, and political leaders. In addition, the amendment protects individuals from being dispossessed of lives, liberties, or properties in the absence of the Due Process of Law by the government or state.
With careful analysis of the Due Process of Law and Crime control models, an individual can attest to the fact that every model has had an advantage to persons, the public, and the criminal justice system. The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments are perceived to be extremely precious because as each protects people from bumping into unfair trials.
References
Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2005). The criminal process (3rd ed.). Oxford England: Oxford University Press.
Dressler, J., & Michaels, A. C. (2010). Understanding criminal procedure (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.
Hudson, D. L. (2002). The Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers.
Levy, L. W. (2000). Origins of the Bill of Rights. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
In the first question, Defendant is charged with robbing a convenience store. The defendant owns a blue Honda Accord. During the trial, the government offers to play a record of the anonymous cell phone call to 911, on which the declarant says, “Hey, a guy just ran out of the 7-11 waving a gun. He jumped into a blue Honda Accord.” In my opinion, the evidence that is presented by the government is admissible in court because it shows the grounds on which the defendant was charged for having robbed the particular convenience store.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence. The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it. However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery. The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice. Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the 5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking. Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him (the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
To ensure all suspects receive required justice and fair trials, it is necessary for all law-enforcing agents to follow specified criminal procedures as specified in criminal codes. Correct following of criminal procedures grant suspects their freedoms hence, minimizing complications that may arise in the whole process from arrest to sentencing.
In addition to ensuring no problems arise during the entire process, correct application of required procedures ensure there is a social desirable relationship between societies and law-enforcing agents. Hence, this will help to ensure that peace, order, and safety always prevails in societies.
The law clearly defines these procedures, and their correct use helps to differentiate autocratic judicial system from democratic ones. It is necessary in all judicial systems to prove that someone is guilty before passing the sentence, whereby evidence gathered act as the main driver of cases. In this regard, the following steps are important in trying to bring perpetrators of criminal offenses into justice namely arrest, booking, discovery, pre-trial and hearings, trial, sentencing, and appealing.
Depending on the verdict of the judge, courts either fine or imprison accused individuals for a specified amount of time ranging from months to life imprisonment. One main thing to note here is that, although the court finds one guilty of a certain criminal offense, there is always a chance of appealing, which can be very beneficial if the case is won by the accused.
Criminal Procedure
Globally all societies have specified ways of ensuing justice always prevails in its judicial systems. This involves bringing criminals to book, and ensuring the sentences they receive correspond to their criminal offenses. The U.S. criminal law specifies these steps or procedures that are substantive, whereby it clearly sets the parameters and penalties to all criminal offenses.
The U.S. constitution clearly states these penalties, although few variations occur across different states. Violation of these laws in most cases jeopardizes the quality of cases, hence hinder achievement of justice. In addition, all individuals whether guilty or not are protected by the bill of rights, whose violation impairs the quality of judgements passed by courts (Scheb, 2008, p. 6).
One main thing to always remember as Scheb (2008, p.8-9) argues, in most cases the overall prosecution role is done by the government, hence the victims’ participation in most cases are minimal. The main role of victims is to set off the prosecution process but as the case proceeds, they act as witnesses. The same applies to suspects if they opt to use services of attorneys, who act as their spokesperson during trial.
Arrest
In common cases, majority of law-enforcing agents conduct arrests near crime scenes, but sometimes the case may not be the same as in Crook’s case. In any arrest case, the law clearly specifies procedures, which all law-enforcing agents should follow. During arrest as Esquire (2009, Para. 1) suggests, all individuals whether guilty or not should not provide any information to the police, because in most cases the information may provide concrete evidence against them in a court of law.
Although in most cases cooperation with law-enforcing agent s can be of importance when later facing judgment, on the other hand, it may complicate the case. This is because due to phobia of the police by many individuals, it is possible for one to give out unnecessary information, which the police may capitalize on, hence use it as evidence.
Immediately when faced with an arrest it is important to request a chance to speak with an attorney, who will take over one’s case. In addition, it is important for individuals to object signing of any documents law-enforcing agents present to them. This is because, in some cases depending on an individual’s mental state during arrest, one may sign wrong document that the prosecution may use later as evidence.
Before conducting the arrest, all law enforcing agents should have arrest warrants, which will grant them a permission of arresting an individual in any situation, as provided by section 18 of the U.S. constitution and section 120 of New York’s regulations. However, in some cases the law enforcing agents may not present such a document for example, when there is lack of enough time for obtaining it or if they are witnesses to the crime (Orfield, 2005, P. 9-10).
If law-enforcing agents conducting the arrest violate any of the provisions, then the arrestees have the right to refuse all the prosecution evidences presented in court. This in most cases occurs when the arresting officers fail to read the Miranda warnings to the arrestee, as the constitution provides in the Miranda warning (Scheb, 2008, p.10). At all times police officers should respect positions taken by individuals as concerns using attorneys or keeping quiet.
Police searches although necessary for locating evidences, the constitutions clearly spells out individuals’ rights as concerns searches and seizures in the map v. Ohio law. All arrestees should always note that the constitution safeguards them from unreasonable searches by law enforcing agents. All law-enforcing agents should conduct searches with permission from the suspect.
In this regard, it is important for Crook to confirm procedures that the police officers who conducted the search in his house used. Considering the age of his nephew it is hard to determine, what exactly transpired before the police found the BB gun, noting the exact position Crook had hidden it.
If the police officers forced their way in, then crook can refuse the evidence found in his house, because he was not there when the police officers searched his house. On the other hand, the police officers may have harassed the minor, hence living him terrified, which is wrong and prosecutable according to the law (Search warrant , 2009, Para. 1 -2).
After arrest, the law dictates that the arresting officers should book in the arrestee, whereby the officer should take the arrestees fingerprints and photograph. Before trial commences, as the law dictates all arrestees should have a questioning session by an agent from the pre trial department. Information provided by the defendant at this level is very crucial, because it determines which step all law-enforcing agents should follow.
Arraignment
Because Crook used a gun in his robbery, which may not be a real one, it might not be possible for him to receive bail. Depending on gathered evidence by the prosecution, as dictated by law, the law enforcing agents arraigns one in court within 24 hours. At this stage, the judge should notify the arrestee of pending charges, whereby one either accepts to be guilty or not.
It is advisable for defendants to have an attorney, to present them during the entire trial time. During arraignment, it is possible for the court to grant a bail but in crook’s case, because of the seriousness of the offence there is a likelihood of remand if he denies the charges.
As specified in the New York law, all defendants have rights to access specific evidence information provided by the prosecution. Discovery encompasses all information that links the defendant to the crime. It includes verbal information, tangible evidences taken during investigation, and other kinds of information or evidence held by the prosecution. In addition, discovery can include witness statements, photographs, and police information as concerns the crime (U.S. Legal, 2009, Para.1).
Preliminary Hearing
As stipulated in the sixth amendment, all U.S. citizens have a right to have a fair and fast judgment. Hence, immediately after filing charges the law dictates that all prosecutors should go ahead and start a trial using the gathered evidence.
As dictated by the law all individuals have rights of trial without any public interferences, hence ensuring courts maintain justice. This stage is of great significance to the defense, because at this point the attorney has rights of interrogating the witnesses, and cross-examining the evidence by the prosecution.
Depending on options opted by the prosecutors, the court can handle the case secretly by a grand jury or in a common court scenario. At this level, the grand jury may use an indictment or a complaint to present charges to the accused. If the grand jury presents in court an un-signed affidavit, then one can file a case against the grand jury because of vindication (Cowling, 2009, Para.1-11).
It is important for one to make a decision at this level, because any decisions made determine whether the case proceeds to trial. Owing to the severity of Crook’s case it is not advisable for him to take a plea because, this may cost him because of penalties associated with his case.
However, due to evidence in police hands, Crook can plead guilty because the real trial has many associated challenges that include longer jail terms or more severe punishments. In addition, due to uncertainties in trial time pleading guilty can save a lot in terms of resources and time considering that Crook has accepted he committed the crime. Depending on the conditions under which the police conducted the search, Crook can file a Mapp, and has the rights to refuse the evidence collected due to breach of his constitutional rights.
Trial
Depending on the nature of the trail, whether by a jury or a normal judge, all individual have rights of defending themselves personally or using their attorneys. In addition, individuals have rights of selecting jurors they want to ensure the whole trial process is fair and just. All suspects should ensure they have competent attorneys to defend them in order to avoid chances of losing cases.
Sentencing
Depending o the severity of the crime judges can pass different charges that range from the most simple from example, probations and community service to the most severe for example life imprisonment and death penalties.
The nature of the jail term that a court gives an individual depends on the evidence provided in court. If evidence presented in court by the prosecution is very strong then likelihoods of long jail terms are possible. For robbery with violence suspects, the court passes sentences depending on the class of the robbery. Currently existing classes of robbery include first, second, and third class robbery.
Depending on what transpired as proved by the prosecution, judges can pass different charges. Possible sentences include jail imprisonment, probation, restitution, death penalty, and community service (Cornell University Law School, 2009, P. 1. In some cases for judges to pass fair trials, some cases may a pre-sentence investigation to determine the right sentences for some specific serious criminal offences (Gerson, 2009, Para. 7 and Perskin, 2009, Para. 2-3).
Conclusion
In conclusion, if individuals are not content with the sentence passed then the law has provisions of appealing, which may alter the outcome of the previous judgment. The law requires the appellants to file their appeals within 30 days, depending whether they filed post-sentence motions or not.
Reference List
Cornell University Law School. Criminal procedure. Cornell University. Web
Cowling, A. N. (2009). Basic criminal procedure from arrest through trail. Web.
Esquire, N. J. (2009). Aggressive criminal defense: Criminal procedure process.Web.
Gerson, G. E. Criminal procedure. The law office of GaryE. Gelson. Web.
Orfield, L. B. (2005). Criminal procedure. New Jersey: Law book exchange.
Perskin, B. D. (2009). Robbery defense attorneys in New York. Web.
Scheb, J. M. (2008). Criminal procedure. New York: Wadsworth Publishing. Web.
The research paper will address the procedural process of a legal stop and frisk and illegality of the practice. In addition, it will also include other related issues brought about by stop and frisk, including the right to stop and frisk, reactions from the community, cases and other issues of interests, as well as a position on stop and frisk. It will also incorporate Saint Leo Core Value of Integrity.
One of the chief legal systems for effecting order maintenance policing among the public is to use stop and frisk. The stop-and-frisk practice is a non-consensual interaction between a police officer and an individual that borders a total arrest (Keenan & Thomas, 2014). Stop and frisk practices, also known as ‘Terry stop’ procedures are faultlessly tolerable because of the action of the Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio. Terry stop therefore has a constitutional legitimacy. A police officer requires only a judicious ground for believing that a criminal activity has been committed, may be in the process of taking place, or is about to be committed. Further, an officer can only perform a limited frisk aspect if they suspect that an individual is armed and dangerous. In this case, the role of frisk is to guarantee the safety of an officer before they can start interrogating a person or a suspect.
Rational and Justification
Stop and frisk emanated from the action of the Supreme Court to support police officers as they interact with members of the community when executing order-maintenance policing activities. It was generally intended to ensure that officers could stop an individual based on reasonable grounds. Over time, however, community members have largely expressed their dissatisfaction with stop and frisk activities. It is has been observed that police officers have expanded, influenced, and applied the Terry standard to justify some policing actions that are clearly out of the contexts of the doctrine as it was originally intended. As such, many have argued that police officers, who execute the law, have failed to uphold the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, and citizens have gradually lost their judicial protection. The doctrine of reasonable suspicion is not based on practices observed in police-citizen interactions, but rather the judiciary, which has not been keen to protect citizens and police officers who are not accountable, have largely shaped problems noted with reasonable suspicion in stop and frisk and pat-down requirements.
Legal Terms for Stop and Frisk
Stop and frisk and pat-down may be referred to as ‘investigatory detention’. Two parts are recognized in stop and frisk. While stop and frisk are two distinct practices, they are usually viewed or performed together. However, stop and frisk must meet some legal requirements to establish its legality. First, for stop, an officer must have reasonable suspicion based on certain facts that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Frisk is normally conducted when a police officer’s judicious doubt is driven by facts that a person is currently armed and dangerous and, thus, putting life in danger.
In this regard, officers may only stop an individual if they judiciously believe that a suspect is somehow linked to criminal activities. Thus, there must be sufficient facts to support a suspicion. It is, however, imperative to note that case law has demonstrated that pretext motives for conducting stop and frisk are not valid. At the same time, courts are also expected to use an objective basis when reviewing such cases.
Theoretically, the frisk is used for the purpose of searching and confirming that suspects do not have any concealed weapons on their person and, thus, they do not pose any danger. In this case, however, frisk is restricted to ‘plain feel’. That is, a police officer may only use their hands on the clothing to feel a weapon, but not enter into a pocket. Officers cannot do the following. First, a police officer may not stop and frisk to search for evidence except when a valid search warrant has been issued. Second, it is not permissible for an office to search for any evidence in closed effects, such as pockets, containers, wallets, purses or any other items carried unless such effects may be concealing a weapon. Finally, the law does not allow an officer to squeeze or manipulate such effects.
During frisk, an officer may get illegal contrabands like drugs using plain feel. Such contraband items can be used as admissible evidence in a court. For instance, an officer may discover an illegal contraband other than a gun during the search. In this case, the suspect may face charges of possessing drug. This charge however may be influenced by facts of the case. Officers are only allowed to search for concealed weapons during stop and frisk practices.
Stop and Frisk: the Issue, the Fourth Amendment and Citizen-Police Interaction
One area in specific in which courts have improperly disregarded the rule of law is in the jurisdiction of searches, seizures, and reasonable suspicion found under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals have the right be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Sexton, Sommerkamp, & Martin, 2014, p. 729). These individual’s rights are found under the collection of obligatory freedom and should not be violated. Therefore, such rights can only be safeguarded by ensuring that each indefensible intrusion by law enforcement officers upon the privacy of a person, whatever the means used, must be viewed as a disregard and disrespect of the Fourth Amendment. Notwithstanding its alleged honored status, provisions on the rights of individuals under the Fourth Amendment continue to suffer drawbacks at any given chances through any special situations.
At the center of the issue and challenges involved in protections noted under the Fourth Amendment are two vital communal values in opposing sides. The law enforcement officers require favorable and flexible power to fulfil their obligations and ensure their safety when engaged in criminal activity investigations. On the other hand, the declared rights of individuals that citizens should be free from subjective, illegal government intrusion into their private lives also contribute to the dilemma.
All States, including Florida and New York among others, have used Terry stop a basis for the law. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion on Terry stop forever transformed how police officers interact with the public (Sexton, Sommerkamp, & Martin, 2014). It is imperative to appreciate that the Judge’s opinion did not provide a broad recognition of police power to stop and frisk the public as desired. Nevertheless, many critics have argued that it was the basis of disregard for the Fourth Amendment (Hutchins, 2013; Mathias, 2015). It is observed that after the Terry stop, jurisprudence on the stop-and-frisk has resulted in a sustained increment of police authority over citizens. As such, the practice has deviated from the original language of the Judge and weakened the Fourth Amendment (Sexton et al., 2014).
Before 1968, the year associated with the Terry stop, police officers involved in a search or seizure had to have probable cause to back their claims and beliefs that the suspected individual was linked to some acts of crime. Under the Fourth Amendment, it is constitutionally recognized that a legal police-citizen interaction can only take place based on voluntary individual cooperation, or when the police have probable cause to support their claims (Sexton et al., 2014).
With the introduction of Terry stop, however, a new form of police-citizen interaction emerged – Terry stop or investigative stop. Terry stop was not based on probable cause or voluntary police-citizen interaction. The Court argued that Terry stop was controlled by the Fourth Amendment’s common provision of reasonableness instead of the Warrant Clause. For police to detain an individual lawfully for a short investigative stop, they need only to have a judicious and some suspicions that a criminal activity has occurred , is taking place, or is about to take place. In addition, a police officer applying stop and frisk may also extend a pat-down to conduct a weapon search if an officer rationally believes that the suspect could be armed and currently dangerous.
As a case example, the NYDP practices involving stop and frisk present some interesting facts. In fact, the public and other concerned bodies have raised questions about privacy rights, racial profiling, and illegal stops (Mathias, 2015).
Based on data captured by the Department, one can confirm these facts (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2016). Most people in communities have confirmed their experiences with stop and frisk activities. Specifically, people of color have long experiences with stop and frisk practices. The NYDP has stopped hundreds of thousands of innocent members of the public every year. Most of these individuals stopped are mainly African Americans and Latinos (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2016). Analyses conducted by the New York Civil Liberties Union have demonstrated that many innocent individuals have been subjected to constant police stops and street interrogations. The number has exceeded 4 million since the year 2002. In addition, African Americans and Latinos have repeatedly been the targets for stop and frisk in New York. It also noted that about nine out of ten persons subjected to stop and frisk in New York have been utterly innocent based on the reports from the NYDP. In the year 2015, for instance, the police stopped some New Yorkers 22,939 times. From this figure, 18,353 (80 percent) were innocent, 12,223 (54 percent) were Black, 6,598 (29 percent) were Latino, and 2,567 (11 percent) were white.
Figure 1: New York Stop and Frisk Data (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2016).
In the State of Florida, stop and frisk activities have become scandalous. For instance, there are documented reports detailing stop and frisk activities involving thousands of children and senior citizens. For instance, the Miami Gardens police data showed that stop and frisk seized some 8,489 children and about 1,775 senior citizens aged between 70 years old to 99 years old. In fact, the report showed that a five-year-old child was reported as suspicious (Brennan & Lieberman, 2014).
In the recent past, communities have started to challenge stop and frisk policies, and in most cases, they have been successful. In the 2011, for instance, Philadelphia opted for judicial monitoring of stops instead of a lawsuit by ACLU. In the year 2012, Seattle also opted for a similar approach after the Department of Justice launched an investigation. In addition, the most significant event occurred in August 2013 in the Federal District Court when the judge allowed an opening order against NYDP’s stop and frisk practices. In a divisive ruling in the case of Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin established that the City of New York had been consciously apathetic to an illegal policing policy that allowed stop and frisks to be done with a minimal reasonable suspicion. In addition, the Judge also determined that the policy had been relying on racial categorization to identify whom to stop-and-frisk and pat-down.
Reasonable Suspicion
According to the US Supreme Court, reasonable suspicion reflects common sense conclusions that any person would reach by considering facts of the situation (Izzi, 2015). That is, reasonable suspicion is not an elusive hunch or thoughts. Instead, it relies on facts to support a given conclusion reached by a police officer.
When compared against probable cause, then it is noted that a reasonable suspicion is based on low standards that an officer requires to arrest a person or perform a full search. However, the outcome of an investigation of a suspect may lead to probable cause. The Court had observed that Terry conviction was necessary, but it appreciated the Fourth Amendment’s roles that a detained individual, for investigative purposes, was undeniably seized and any ensuing frisk was automatically a search. There are reasonable grounds for an investigative stop as previously mentioned while a seizure involves accosting a person and stopping them from walking away. These policing activities require specific and articulable facts noted during seizure. When all these are take into account together with rational arguments, then the action taken could be deemed appropriate by considering reasonable caution expressed by officers.
According to Saint Leo University, its core value of integrity reflects excellence. That is, members, including the faculty, staff, and student live and deliver the mission of the Institution. It requires honest, fairness and consistency in words and deeds (Saint Leo University, 2016). Based on this view, police officers should not act on a mere hunch and pure imagination. Instead, they should support their actions with verifiable facts and accurately use of evidence to support probable cause. In this case, when an officer stops a five-year-old child and a 99-year-old citizen, then their integrity is questionable.
Likewise, community members should also reflect the core value of integrity. Any individuals subjected to a stop and frisk should maintain their integrity. For instance, one should cooperate, avoid resisting the authority, or running away because an attempt to resist could lead to other charges, including obstruction of justice. Suspects should remain silent and polite, and volunteer information if necessary, but they must understand how such information will affect them.
Presently, community members must understand that stop and frisk practices are vital part of policing, and they are based on the law. However, officers must act with integrity to end a search and detention if a suspect does not violate any laws. Community members are encouraged to ask whether they are under arrest, free to leave, or if they need a lawyer.
Acceptability
Terry stop became widely acceptable after 1968. As such, police officers expanded, manipulated, and abused it without establishing reasonable suspicions. These practices could explain why Miami police have subjected children and senior citizens to stop and frisk. In fact, in the year 2009, in the case of Arizona v. Johnson, the Court consistently reiterated its support for Terry stop policing (Hutchins, 2013). In this case, an officer attached to the Arizona gang taskforce lawfully stopped a car. According to an officer’s observation, Johnson, one of the passengers, was dressed in a way that reflected gang’s dressing patterns (Hutchins, 2013). Subsequently, the police asked Johnson to step out of the car for questioning and suspected that the suspect could be armed. The officer then patted Johnson down to search for a weapon, and a gun was found. Johnson was charged with weapon possession, but he challenged the case based on its consistency with the Terry stop. However, unanimous Court decision asserted that police officers have the right to frisk passengers in any lawful traffic stop if they have reasonable suspicion that a passenger is carrying a weapon (Hutchins, 2013).
In the recent past, however, some lawsuits and public concerns have led to a widespread objection of the Terry stop. Consequently, the most affected States, including New York, have initiated some forms of stop and frisk reforms.
Reforms
The NYDP has initiated reforms to improve stop and frisk policing practices. These reforms are aimed at reining in questionable tendencies of officers.
Police officers will no longer rely on a hunch to stop a person. In addition, it is noted that officers would no longer stop and frisk a person merely because of a ‘furtive movement, a mere presence in identified high crime locations, or a lone person standing. These observations are viewed as deficient bases for stop-and-frisk policing.
Police officers will be required to have individualized or specific reasonable suspicions to show that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Conclusion
In 1968, the Supreme Court established that Terry stop was an appropriate means of effecting order maintenance in communities. It was generally meant to facilitate questioning of suspects and protecting officers. Over the years, however, law enforcement agencies, specifically the police and the judiciary, have expanded, manipulated, and abused Terry stop. In this regard, the vital concept of a reasonable suspicion has taken a new direction and no longer protects citizens based on the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the police are not accountable for their actions. This situation has led to unlawful interactions between police and members of the public.
On this note, it is observed that Terry stop requires reforms to protect human rights while safeguarding police officers during the course of their duties. The reforms will ensure that the gains provided under the Fourth Amendment are not degraded while guaranteeing the rule of law in the US.
References
Brennan, A., & Lieberman, D. (2014). Florida city’s ‘stop and frisk’ nabs thousands of kids, finds 5-year-olds ‘suspicious’. Fusion. Web.
Hutchins, R. (2013). Stop Terry: Reasonable Suspicion, Race, and A Proposal to Limit Terry Stops. Legislation and Public Policy, 16, 883-917.
Saint Leo University. (2016). Core Values at Saint Leo University. Web.
Sexton, J., Sommerkamp, J., & Martin, J. (2014). Ineffable Intuition and Unreasonable Suspicion: Our Rule of Law Failure. SMU Law Review, 67(4), 729-744.
The term “techniques of neutralization” is used in criminal procedures mostly by people who are accused of having committed crimes. This refers to theoretical series of theoretical methods. Also, they are used by people who have committed illegitimate acts to defend or neutralize several values that could prevent them from indulging in such acts. These values include obligations to act according to the law, morality among many others. Techniques of neutralization are psychological methods that are used by people who want to commit crimes. They use these methods to justify the wrong acts that they intend to do. These methods are seen as being part of inner denial (Braithwaite, 2010, p. 5).
The argument for Techniques of Neutralization in crime and its Justification
The idea behind the formulation of the techniques of neutralization came from the differential association theory. The techniques of neutralization were coined by David Matza and Gresham Sykes in the 1950s. Both of these scholars were working on the differential association theory which was postulated by Edwin Sutherland. Matza and Sykes were interested in explaining how criminals could move away from the unlawful to appropriate ways of living.
They thus developed the theory known as delinquency and drift from which the methods of neutralization were derived. These methods include denial of injury, denying the responsibility, denying the victim, condemning the condemners, dehumanizing the victim or victims, misrepresenting consequences, disbursing blame, and appealing to higher loyalties. These methods can be sampled from the arguments that are made by the convicts of wrongdoing. Some of the arguments are: it was not my fault and I was not aware, but they knew it was happening among many other statements ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 664).
Most justice systems in most countries that embrace democracy and the rule of law give criminal suspects a chance to defend themselves. While some suspects of illegal acts accept responsibility for that acts and are convicted, aspects of denial remain within them. When given a chance to express themselves, they often justify their wrong acts. They try to neutralize their acts by mostly laying blame on the victims of their wrong acts. Such behavior is psychological and is what is explained in the techniques of neutralization (Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 667).
A good example of techniques of neutralization is as brought out in the article by Scully and Marolla titled “Convicted Rapists: the vocabulary of motive – excuses and justifications”. In the article, Scully and Marolla were trying to put to practice the concept of techniques of neutralization. They surveyed convicted rapists and analyzed their justification and excuses that were put forward by the convicts. Scully and Marolla based on the criminal investigation files of the convicts. Some of the convicts accepted the conviction while others were in denial. Most of those who denied the conviction had excuses or justifications aimed at portraying them as non-rapists.
They gave several reasons that they believed proved their innocence by justifying the acts that they committed. Their excuses were meant to make the victim appear as having invoked the acts – they blamed the victims for having necessitated the alleged illegal acts. Several themes were singled out as a justification by the male convicts for their acts among them being that women are seductresses (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 154).
Around 31 percent of the convicts termed women as being the aggressors of their acts. They claimed that women were the ones who made them perform the act unsuspected. Thus, according to them, they did not commit a crime in the way they presented themselves – the seductive way of dressing. The convicts also claimed that in the course of the act, women enjoyed the most. Those who admitted having committed the crimes also had reasons that they gave to justify the acts that they did. Most of them, just like their counterparts who denied also pointed on women as being the provokers of their acts.
However, one thing to note about this research is that most of the deniers who were contacted did not term themselves as being completely on the right. They also did accept some degree of accountability for the acts that they committed. Only a little percentage of deniers stuck to the point that they were innocent and laid all the blame on the females – victims. Most of those who admitted having engaged in the illegal act – rape argued accepted that they were in the wrong and that their acts were immoral and could not be justified. Thus, these convicts blamed themselves rather than blaming the victims ((Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 668).
The actions of people are usually measured by the values that are acceptable to the society otherwise known as flexibility. Flexibility is the rules that are accepted and upheld across the entire society. It forms one of the most important parts of criminal law. The justifications made by the convicted criminals are often referred to as rationalizations. Rationalization follows a deviant act or behavior as a protection tool for self-blame on the side of the convict and the blame that is laid on other people after the illegal act. Nonetheless, there is a belief that, in some cases, rationalization comes before deviant acts. In this case, they can be used to enhance such behaviors.
Before the differential association theory was developed, crime in society was explained based on social classes, age, location, and mental disorder among other aspects of society. This theory came to contextualize crime. It argues that the best way through which crime can be learned is via intimate interaction with people. According to the theory, people keep interacting with one another including those who commit crimes. Thus, according to the proponents of the theory, crime is something (Sacco & Kennedy, 2011, p. 138).
Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization
The concept of techniques of neutralization which was developed by analyzing and assessing the differential association theory argues that delinquents in most cases disapprove of their behavior. The concept stands on the ground that juveniles often engage in delinquent acts via neutralization. However, research proves that there are differences in the level at which individuals accept neutralization techniques.
The proponents of this concept argue that individuals who interact with delinquent peers have a high likelihood of becoming criminals. To this effect, this concept conquers the differential association theory and its assumption that crime is attained through learning. Further studies have revealed that both delinquents and non-delinquents use neutralization techniques. Also, unlike the differential association theory, this theory does not pay attention to the social structure aspects which are critical in justifying crime.
Reference List
Braithwaite, J. (2010). Crime, shame and reintegration. In Wright, B.R.E and McNeil, R.B. (Eds.), Boundaries: A customized reader. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Sacco, V. F. and Kennedy, L. W. (2011). The Criminal Event: An introduction to criminology in Canada. Toronto: Thomson Nelson fifth edition.
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22 (6): 664-670.
The Fifth Amendment’s “Functional Equivalent of a Question” test gives suspects less protection. A person who is in custody and subjected to explicit questioning then that triggers Miranda rights. According to the constitutional rights one is not supposed to be charged for not disclosing any information that can be used as evidence against him. The United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protects those who choose to remain silent since they have the right to remain silent constitutionally. No one can be forced to reveal information that could be used against them by the federal government. A person’s refusal to answer questions or offer information that could lead to her being charged with a crime is referred to as “taking the Fifth”. It can only be invoked in response to a compelled communication through subpoena or a process that is legal. Therefore a prosecutor cannot conclude that defendant’s silence implies guilty. However there are consequences of taking the fifth where in a civil case the judge can draw inference to support liability after the defendant has invoked the Fifth Amendment.
A first-hand witness’ testimony must also be incorporated into the message. Under the Fifth Amendment, a testimonial statement is an affirmative nod (Rappaport, 2017). An assumed assumption that evidence was present is conveyed by merely giving papers or another item of evidence that supports the claim. If it leads to the discovery of further pieces of evidence, a single piece of incriminating information is sufficient. The testimony should be incriminating supplying a connection in the evidence chain allowing one to be charged of a crime.
“Deliberately evoking a response” test
When criminal suspects confess after being apprehended, the “Deliberately Eliciting a Response” standard established by the Sixth Amendment gives suspects more protection and places more restrictions on authorities who question them. Any statement made by the suspect in the absence of the lawyer even when voluntary done, it violates right of suspect to counsel. While the Sixth Amendment safeguards a wide range of rights, it is primarily concerned with increasing the accuracy, impartiality, and legitimacy of criminal investigations (Rappaport, 2017). According to the Supreme Court, the Sixth Amendment applies to both federal and state criminal proceedings as outlined in the criminal procedures and constitutional rights. Because state courts handle the vast majority of criminal prosecutions, the Amendment’s reach was considerably broadened(Primus, 2017). Due to the amendment the court has to interpret and protect the sixth Amendment to a wide range of criminal justice system. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the Compulsory Process Clause, which empowers defendants to force witnesses to testify against them. The clause has protected thedefendant’s right to testify in their own defense.
To be qualified for this entitlement, the accused must face a term of at least six months in prison and any other circumstance that would impact the range of penalties that can be imposed on them. Contrary to popular opinion, a jury can consist of as few as six individuals, notwithstanding its historical use though the states need the conventional twelve.The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses, in combination with the Jury Trial Clause, does not allow a defendant from being convicted unless there is prove from prosecution that each element of the crime was intentionally committed disregarding the law. The Supreme Court ruled that defendants do not have the right to have their jurors educated or simply informed of the charges’ long-term repercussions under the Sixth Amendment (Primus, 2017). As a result, jurors are still fact-finders, but their original role as “circuit-breakers in the State’s machinery of justice” is mostly lost nowadays.
References
Primus, E. B. (2017). Disentangling Miranda and Massiah: how to revive the sixth amendment right to counsel as a tool for regulating confession law 2017(3), 126-148
Rappaport, J. (2017). The structural function of the sixth amendment right to counsel of choice.The Supreme Court Review 2017(1), 117-156