Americas Courts and the Criminal Justice System - Research Paper Example

Americas Courts and the Criminal Justice System Introduction In America, the accused is given many due process rights in the criminal justice system. They are given the chance, generally within 24 hours of being arrested, to answer for his crime and be given bail. He is also given another chance, in that the prosecutor must demonstrate to the judge, or a grand jury, that there is enough evidence that a crime was committed and that the accused committed that crime. The defense attorney is given the right to see the evidence that the prosecutor has, and the defense attorney has the right to keep this evidence out of court if there is something improper about the evidence. The accused must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and, if found guilty, he or she has the chance to appeal the sentence. Also, if there is a mental illness involved, there is often a further layer of protection. This paper will describe a recent crime, go through the steps that will be taken after arrest, explain what might happen if the accused has a mental illness, analyze strengths and weaknesses of the system, and make a conclusion. Description of the Crime On July 27, 2012, Noah Udell snatched an I-Phone from the hands of Erika Silva. When she screamed that her I-Phone was snatched, two good samaritans chased after him and tackled him. Udell was chase by the good samaritans, getting away several times before they finally caught him and he was arrested by the police. Udell stated that he was having a manic episode at the time of the crime (Italiano and Gregorian, 2012). Description of the Criminal Justice Process the Defendant Will Go Through, Starting With Arrest Udell would be arrested for the crime. The prosecutor will get information about this crime and decide whether to charge Udell with a felony or a misdemeanor, and what charges to bring. Assuming that Udell is charged with a felony, which he probably would be because snatching an I-Phone from somebody’s hands would be considered robbyer, within 24 hours, he will have to make a first appearance in front of the judge. This first appearance will be the first chance for the judge to read the charges facing the individual, and will give the individual a chance to offer a plea of guilty or not guilty. Virtually all of these individuals enter a plea of not guilty at this first appearance. The judge will then give the individual a date to enter a more formal plea of guilty or not guilty, called an arraignment, which will occur either after a preliminary hearing, where the judge hears evidence presented by the prosecutor and the defense attorney, or the charges go through a grand jury. Moreover, at this hearing, the bond is set (Neubauer, 2008). In a preliminary hearing, the judge decides if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial, the defendant is given an arraignment date. Alternatively, if there is not enough evidence that there was probable cause that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it, the judge may dismiss the charges. In a grand jury, only the prosecutor is present, and the prosecutor presents his or her witnesses before a impaneled jury. The jury then decides if there is enough evidence that a crime was committed and the defendant committed it. As with the results of the preliminary hearing, if the grand jury decides that there is enough evidence to formally charge the defendant, they will return a verdict which allows the defendant to be formally charged in his or her arraignment (Neubauer, 2008). At the defendant’s arraignment, the defendant is given the chance to plead guilty or not guilty. Again, the vast majority of individuals will plead not guilty at this hearing. Meanwhile, the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney are exchanging discovery amongst themselves, which consists of the evidence that each has to give to the other. The prosecuting attorney might hand over evidence which consists of the evidence that the police gathered at the crime scene, a list of witnesses, etc. The defense attorney might hand over the results of a mental examination, etc. Whatever evidence the other has is handed over with proper written requests (Neubauer, 2008). Assuming that Udell is not offered a guilty plea that he takes, then he will be brought to trial before a jury of his peers. The jury will consist of 12 men and women, who must decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed and that Udell committed the crime. The prosecutor presents the state case first, calling witnesses and presenting forensic evidence. The defense attorney may object to the evidence presented on procedural grounds, or may cross-exam the witnesses. Moreover, the defense attorney may present motions in limine on evidence that is due to be presented. These motions in limine are made to the judge, without the jury being in the courtroom, and these motions are presented to try to exclude evidence against the defendant if the evidence is improper is some way (Neubern, 2008). The probable result of this is that Udell will be given some sort of probation, or maybe some sort of sentence whereby Udell will be sentenced to, say, 5 years in prison, and will serve 120 days of this sentence, after which he will be on probation, with the threat that, if he breaks the terms of his probation, he will have to serve the rest of his prison time (Neubern, 2008). Moreover, assuming that Udell does actually plead guilty, but is found guilty by the jury, then he would have the chance to appeal the sentence on the basis of some kind of error which was made during the trial (Neubern, 2008). There is an alternative that would be a good alternative in this case, and that is mental health diversion, assuming that Udell was, in fact, having a manic episode when he committed this crime. According to Redlich et al. (2012), mental health diversion may result if the state in question has what is called a mental health court (MHC). An MHC is a specialty court which mandate and monitor community treatment. The rationale of this court and the programs that this court supports are that the defendant may spend less time in jail before and after the disposition. Sirotich (2009) has also written about mental health diversion initiatives, stating that there are different models under which the defendant can receive some type of mental health care. One such model is the pre-booking model, which means that he police decide if there is a necessity of arrest or if the defendant would be more appropriate diverted to mental health services, instead of facing formal charges (Sirotich, 2009). Post-booking diversion models are diverse, according to Sirotich (2009). These diversionary programs come into play after the defendant is already in the criminal justice system. One type of post-booking diversionary program is jail-based. In this diversionary program, the defendant is identified as mentally ill, assessed and diverted from custody to a community-based mental health treatment. The defendant is identified by a pre-trial service personnel or specialized jail personnel. In court-based diversion, the defendant is screened by a mental health service provider who work in the courthouse. The defendant is then screened, and, if found to be mentally ill, is provided with a treatment program, the participation in which is made a condition for bond (the defendant has to attend the program while out on bail, and if he does not, his bond will be revoked and he will be returned to custody). Sirotich (2009) also describes specialized mental health court. In these courts, the judge, prosecutor, defense attorneys and court staff often has specialized training regarding mental health issues, and they work with one another to link the accused with treatment and support (Sirotich, 2009). My Analysis of the Strongest and Weakest Links in the Criminal Justice System In the above case, the weakest link, in my opinion, is that mental health court and diversionary programs are not more readily available. Redlich (2012) states that the main reason for this is that it takes a long time to enroll people in mental health courts, which means that their processing in the criminal justice system is lengthy. Redlich (2012) found in her study that there was an average length of 76 days from arrest and disposition outcomes, which means that diversion is not swift, like it is supposed to be. Moreover, Redlich (2012) further noted that, for most defendants, they are not provided with adequate mental health services while in jail, and that jails do not have the money for basics such as screening and crisis intervention. This results, according to Redlich (2012), in jail detainees not getting the help that they need, which means that they do not fare well. The strongest aspects of the criminal justice system, in general, for defendants who do not necessarily have a mental illness, and even for those who do, is the fact that there is so many layers of protection for them in this particular justice system. They are given multiple chances to plead guilty or not guilty, prosecutors are required to give defense attorneys as much exculpatory evidence as possible, and juries must find defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys are also given the chance to keep evidence out of court and keep this evidence from coming before a jury, if this evidence was tainted in some way. Defendants have a right to appeal if they are found guilty, which means that independent arbiters will look at the process and make sure that everything is fair. These are all necessary safeguards, and these safeguards are, by far, the best part of the American criminal justice system. Moreover, just the fact that mentally ill defendants do, theoretically, have the chance to have mental health diversion in lieu of prison time is another good safeguard. Conclusion The American criminal justice system is one in which there are many layers, which are designed to safeguard the accused. Every step of the way, the accused is given due process and every attempt is made to make sure that the system is fair to the accused. This makes the American criminal justice system as fair as possible. And, if the accused has some sort of mental illness, he is given further protection, at least ostensibly, by being given the chance, in some jurisdictions, to participate in a mental health court. Other jurisdictions may not have mental health courts, but they may have some other type of mental health diversion program. This adds another layer of safeguard for the accused who might be suffering from a mental illness of some sort, which seemed to be the case with Udell, who stated that he was suffering from a manic episode when he committed his crime. Although there are problems with treating mental illness – Redlich (2012) states that most jails are underfunded and cannot handle mental illness care – this does not take away from the fact that the American criminal justice, in theory, is probably the most fair in the entire world. Sources Used Neubauer, D. (2008) America’s courts and the criminal justice system. New York: Thomson Higher Education. Redlich, A., Liu, S., Steadman, H., Callahan, L. & Robbins, P. (2012) Is diversion swift? Comparing mental health courts and traditional criminal justice processing. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(4), 1-14. Sirotich, F. (2009) The criminal justice outcomes of jail diversion programs for person with mental illness: A review of the evidence. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(4), 461-472. Read More