Criminal Justice and American Jutice ystem - Essay Example

Criminal Jutice Criminal Jutice Eay Criminal jutice i the application or tudy of law regarding criminal behavior. Thoe who tudy criminal jutice include the police, thoe working in a judiciary capacity, and lawyer who either defend or proecute thoe accued of a crime. Other work to advocate for change in the current ytem of criminal jutice, uch a thoe who render deciion regarding current law, like member of upreme Court. It i important that the criminal jutice ytem include the word jutice, ince law applied to thoe accued of a crime hould be fair. Jutice alo refer not only to the fair trial accorded to the citizen of mot countrie, but alo to the jut retribution for victim of a crime, a for example, eeing an offender jailed. Criminal jutice i alway a goal. All involved in the arret, proecution, defene or judgment of a upect aim to be fair. However, thi goal i not alway met, accounting for the flexibility in the application of law, the change to law that are unfair, and the judiciary power of interpretation. (Banner, 99-111) A a field of tudy, mot who will work with part of the law that involve behavior defined a criminal, will tudy criminal jutice. Training and certification for police officer often i merely called criminal jutice. Lawyer with a pecial interet in either the proecution or defene of upected criminal may alo chooe to major in criminal jutice in a four-year degree program. Knowledge of the law, right and privilege of victim and upect i eential to aiming for jutice in both the court and law enforcement ytem. Thoe who have interet in training with the FBI or CIA may alo chooe to obtain a four-year degree in criminal jutice. uch a degree not only tudie the law a it tand, but a well evaluate the law. ubject in univeritie that offer a major in criminal jutice may be varied. They may include topic like forenic pychology, hitory of criminal jutice, ethic, and ociology. Police officer train pecifically on what power they have in relationhip to a upect, and what power they do not have. They learn how to legally adminiter criminal jutice in their capacity a law enforcement. They further train in the meaure of force, uch a hooting a gun or employing pepper pray that may be lawfully ued, and mut be ued with capability. A certain kill et in the apprehenion of an ecaping criminal i required. Mot hoping to work in law enforcement firt tudy criminal jutice and then attend pecial academie to receive further training. (Delfino and Mary, 88-334) Depite training, criminal jutice i not alway jut. There are great cop and terrible one, judge who are too trict, and thoe who are too lenient. There are alo very killed and exceptional lawyer, and very poorly organized lawyer. Many argue, in particular, that law in the U eem to be particularly unjut to minority population, ince they frequently have little money to pend on top lawyer. There are numerou example to cite of the mifiring of criminal jutice. There i alway room for improvement in thi field. Very many people continue to work toward the goal of true criminal jutice while continuing to exemplify fairne in thi field and it application. Eay Two The crie of innocent victim who are convicted and thrown into the dark cavernou prion cell are not being heeded. They cannot afford the type of lawyer needed that will fight to prove their innocence. The American jutice ytem i convoluted and broken, making it almot impoible to prove innocence in the face of circumtantial evidence. The character of the accued i put on trial to convict a peron rather than direct evidence. Direct evidence i often lacking; o, in it tead proecutor ue theorie and uppoition to help convict the accued. Jurie are convicting innocent repeatedly becaue they lack fundamental knowledge of the legal ytem and of the definition of key legal term and procee, and often hold antiquated belief ytem concerning confeion, eye witne identification and witne tetimonie. Aumption are made rather than fact being actually aimilated, correlated, and proved; thu, the innocent are convicted, incarcerated, and left to rot. (Dow and Dow, 331-334) Time and time again I have watched trial where the huband ha been accued of murdering hi wife and the proecution "allege" that he found out he wa gay, or found out he had a mitre, or found out he had child porno on hi computer O HE MUT HAVE KILLED HER! No direct evidence exited that he found out, or that they even had an argument concerning thoe matter. In ome cae, the defene even provide evidence that the wife knew and didn't care. Depite the lack of direct evidence ome jurie then ue the proecution' "evidence" and their own peronal view/biae to convict. TFU or proof you ak Read the time line and forenic evidence for cott Peteron and the forenic evidence for Michael Peteron. Alo, read all the cae file at the end of thi tory. (Dow and Dow, 331-334) cott Peteron wa convicted of killing hi pregnant wife Lacy and unborn on Conner in California, and wa entenced to death in 2005. In cott Peteron' trial, no forenic evidence exited except for one lone hair in a pair of plier. Eye witne account from neighbor prove that Lacy wa alive when cott left for hi fihing trip. The main evidence ued for conviction wa two fact, he wa at the marina the day Lacy went miing, the ame marina where Lacy and Conner' bodie were eventually found a month later, and he had an on going affair even after he diappeared. Wa he a dumb fuck Hell yeah! Wa he guilty There wa no evidence that howed beyond a reaonable doubt that he indeed wa; more evidence proved he wa not. Michael Peteron wa convicted of killing hi wife, Kathleen in North Carolina, in 2003. He found her injured at the bottom of a taircae in the couple' home, where he died. In Michael Peteron' trial, evidence wa allowed in about the death of a friend in Germany 13 year before, where the friend wa found dead on a taircae. Alo, let in at trial wa evidence of hi bi-exuality. (Read page 1 after 2 for more on tate' convoluted evidence). However, evidence that the friend died of a troke and natural caue wa omehow not conidered in the cae by the judge or jury a relevant I gue. The evidence ued to convict him wa baed on the fact he wa bi-exual and two women he knew died on taircae (mut not be coincidence). Forenic evidence did prove there wa no blood platter evidence of an object being wung repeatedly to beat hi wife Kathleen in the head. However, blood and hair evidence wa found on two tair tep and the door jam howing he hit her head more than once in an apparent fall. (Dow and Dow, 331-334) Alo, conider what happened with the Duke Lacroe player, where the Ditrict Attorney himelf conpired to convict innocent young men to further hi career. Another cae involved El Pao, Texa Border Patrol agent. Another problem i how the media report breaking crime new torie, ometime releaing groly incorrect or mileading information regarding a cae and tainting the jury pool. The media feel no reponibility in the role they may play for wrongful conviction. Dan Abram, a MNBC legal correpondent tate [ic], "The preumption of innocence doe not and hould not exit outide a courtroom. Think about it. For to u preume omeone innocent i for to u preume the authoritie got it wrong whenever they arret omeone. I'm not willing to aume that unle I'm a juror. It' a legal fiction that wa deigned for the courtroom." According to the Innocence Project, the following are ome of the common caue of wrongful conviction: (ee the Innocence Project link above for more detailed information on the caue lited below.) Eyewitne Miidentification Unreliable or Limited cience Fale Confeion Forenic cience Fraud or Miconduct Government Miconduct Informant or nitche Bad Lawyering o, how do we fix thi problem The Innocence Project tate that, "Over the lat 15 year, there ha been a major hift in criminal jutice legilation a a reult of DNA exoneration. Policymaker are increaingly recognizing and addreing the problem thee exoneration demontrate - and they are beginning to enact common-ene reform that have been proven to improve accuracy in the criminal jutice ytem." However, there i much more that need to be done. Each tate decide what reform they will enact, if any. Many time, even after a peron i proven innocent, the peron till wait for month and even year to be releaed due to a legal ytem that recognize the conviction over the evidence of innocence. A federal protection act hould be legilated that if a peron ha been exonerated, he/he hould be releaed immediately, and not be ubjected to waiting month or year for the court to entertain appeal to overturn the conviction, or wait for a governor to grant him a pardon. (Megivern,33) Jurie need to be educated before they take their eat. A mini-cla, if you will, on the definition of key legal term, procedure, and the rule of evidence. In particular, they need to know the difference between circumtantial evidence and direct evidence. Eay Three United tate, the death penalty, or capital punihment, may be precribed by Congre for federal capital crime and by ome tate for murder and violent crime. Argument in favor of the death penalty in the United tate include deterrence and retribution. Opponent ay that the rik of executing the innocent hould preclude ue of the death penalty. The number of execution in the United tate in 2006 dropped to it lowet number in 10 year, in part due to legal challenge reulting in many tate reviewing their capital punihment policie and procedure. Due to concern over how lethal injection are adminitered, ome tate are reviewing the proce to enure that lethal injection doe not violate the U.. Contitution' Eighth Amendment proviion againt cruel and unuual punihment. Court throughout the country, including the U.. upreme Court, made a number of ruling during 2006 that have impacted tate capital punihment policie. The court' unanimou June 12, 2006, ruling in Hill v. McDonough determined that inmate can challenge lethal injection a a civil right iue. However, the judge did not rule on whether thi method of execution contitute cruel and unuual punihment. Death penalty in U.. Law: The U.. upreme Court ha upheld ue of the death penalty for the mot eriou crime provided that it ue i in accordance with procedural guarantee of the U.. Contitution and relevant tate contitution. Death penalty for juvenile: A cloely divided upreme Court ruled March 1, 2005 that the death penalty cannot be impoed on youthful murderer who were not yet 18 year of age at the time they committed the crime, ending a practice ued in 19 of the U.. tate. Capital punihment for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded Mentally retarded: In October 2005, the court upheld the right of individual U.. tate to etablih their own guideline for determining whether a defendant facing the death penalty i mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution. The upreme Court in 2002 abolihed the death penalty for mentally retarded offender and directed tate to develop way to enforce the ban. Mentally ill: In 1986 the U.. upreme Court prohibited the execution of the mentally inane and required an adverarial proce for determining mental competency. Legal definition and concept of inanity and competency, however, do not alway coincide with medical opinion, and a a reult controvery continue. Death penalty and International Law: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Right pecifically recognize the right of countrie to impoe the death penalty for the mot eriou crime, carried out puruant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court and in accordance with appropriate afeguard and obervance of due proce. (Urofky, 89) The United tate work aiduouly in international fora, including the U.N. Commiion on Human Right and the Organization for ecurity and Cooperation in Europe (OCE), againt the ue of the death penalty without due proce, uch a for political prioner detained without fair trial by autocratic government. Work Cited Banner, tuart (2002). The Death Penalty: An American Hitory. Harvard Univerity Pre. IBN 0-674-00751-4. Delfino, Michelangelo and Mary E. Day. (2007). Death Penalty UA 2005 - 2006 MoBeta Publihing, Tampa, Florida. IBN 978-0972514125; and Death Penalty UA 2003 - 2004 (2008). MoBeta Publihing, Tampa, Florida. IBN 978-0972514132. Dow, David R., Dow, Mark (ed.) (2002). Machinery of Death. The Reality of America' Death Penalty Regime. Routledge, New York. IBN 0-415-93266-1 (cloth), IBN 0-415-93267-X (paperback) (thi book provide critical perpective on the death penalty; it contain a foreword by Chritopher Hitchen) Megivern, Jame J., The Death Penalty: An Hitorical and Theological urvey. Paulit Pre, New York. IBN 0-8091-0487-3 McClokey, Robert G. (2005). The American upreme Court. 4th ed. Chicago: Univerity of Chicago Pre. IBN 0-226-55682-4. Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inide the ecret world of the upreme Court. Doubleday, 2007. IBN 0-385-51640-1. Urofky, Melvin and Finkelman. (2001). A March of Liberty: A Contitutional Hitory of the United tate. 2 vol. New York: Oxford Univerity Pre. IBN 0-19-512637-8 & IBN 0-19-512635-1. Read More