Crime and Society, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution - Essay Example

Full (day month year) Question Summarize the law as it currently stands regarding search and seizure as applied to a home and to a vehicle. Do the different requirements achieve the goals of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? Why or why not? The law recognizes the greater expectation of privacy in homes so that violation of privacy requires probable cause. The general rule in searching and seizing property from people’s homes is through the authority of a valid search warrant, which is obtained from the courts based on reasonable grounds. Police officers knock on the door of the homeowner to show the warrant before doing the search. The areas of the house to be searched and the extent of the search depend on the scope and purpose stated in the warrant. All items seized that fall within the scope of the warrant can be used as evidence. There are exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant. One is if police officers were freely granted permission by the homeowner or somebody with authority to permit a search. Another is when a crime is being committed inside a house or a person being chased by the police is seen entering a home, then officers can enter the home without a warrant. Last is the valid entry of law enforcement officers inside a house during emergencies, such as a fire or life-and-death situations. Any items seized without a warrant and do not fall under the exceptions may not be accepted as evidence in court. There is lesser expectation of privacy in cars. While obtaining a warrant and seeking consent still apply, there is a wider room for exceptions when it comes to vehicles. The need for a warrant depends on expectations on the mobility of the vehicle. Searching a car parked inside a garage with the engine off and the owner not likely to take off at any moment may require a warrant. Warrantless searches usually coincide with the flagging of cars based on actual violations of law or some reasonable suspicion. Checkpoint stops are valid. Traffic violation and non-functioning car safety features are valid causes for stopping vehicles. Once the car is stopped, police officers may request for a driver’s license and car registration. If there is no suspicion of illegal contraband inside the car or of any suspicious behavior of car passengers, police officers may only seize illegal items inside the vehicle that are in plain view. Illegal drugs on the dashboard, passenger seat or backseat that the police officer saw while talking with the driver could be seized for use as a cause for arrest and as evidence in a subsequent case. Police officers may require an explanation from the driver or passengers for any suspicious items or behavior such as by asking for a gun permit for a gun lying on the seat or dashboard. If there is reasonable suspicion of contraband or criminal activity or if a good reason exists to think that a person is armed and dangerous, police officers may do a pat down and/or protective search of the compartment for weapons and/or search the compartment or trunk of the car. Search of a person and the vehicle that he/she is driving at the time of arrest is valid. The intention of the fourth amendment is to balance individual right to privacy with the responsibility of law enforcement towards securing peace and order. As such, the goals of the fourth amendment are to ensure the reasonableness of search and seizures conducted by law enforcement officers and to require law enforcement officers to get warrants in particular situations. With regards to the rules on home search and seizure, these appear to satisfy the goals of the fourth amendment by requiring the use of warrants for searches and seizures as the general rule but providing exceptions to make room for the fulfillment of law enforcement duties. In relation to car searches and seizures, the rules provide flexibility for more exceptions because of the diverse situations involving car searches. As such, jurisprudence sometimes shift more towards the right to privacy or more towards law enforcement duties. Even so, the fundamental rules still support the goals of the fourth amendment with the application dependent on context. Question 2 Capital punishment has always been a controversial issue. Do you think capital punishment has a role in modern criminal punishment schemes? Explain your answer? Capital punishment’s role in the modern criminal punishment scheme is as a last-resort response to controlling violent crimes. The adoption or re-establishment of the death penalty in most of the states was during the 1980s, when violent crimes were on the rise. Even so, the death penalty is used sparingly. The death penalty is reserved for crimes that are considered shocking and violent. The reluctance to remove the death penalty altogether reflects the approval of majority of citizens but with strong concern for cautious application. With all other oppositions set aside, the strongest criticism of the death penalty is the faults or loopholes in the system. When forensic technology became widely employed, there were some death penalty cases that were reversed because evidence proved a different scenario. With forensic science and developments in criminal procedures, this criticism could dissipate. Capital punishment, in the context of violent crimes, can address the goals of the criminal law system. Punishments for people committing crimes can serve five purposes, which are to prevent commission of the same crime by the offender or other people, to keep the offender from committing more injury or harm, to help the offender change his ways, to make amends to the victims, and to pay back for the harm suffered by the community from the crime done. The death penalty can prevent people from committing the crimes that are punishable by death. The fear of being punished with death can make people think twice before committing a heinous act. However, this does not work for everybody. Violent crimes are still being committed every day even in states with a death penalty. The death penalty does not have an absolute deterrent effect. As such, a criticism of death penalty also center on its limited crime prevention impact so that other punishments, such as life imprisonment or long sentences, could suffice. Yet, capital punishment cannot be declared as having zero deterrence effect. Even a little effect could make capital punishment useful. Capital punishment ensures that a violent crime offender will not be able to injure anybody else. The death penalty also supports the goal of treating offenders but only to a limited extent. The death penalty is not reversible. These goals have led to debate. On one side is the contention that the death penalty is not humane because it prevents people from making amends or changing their ways. On the other side is the assertion that there are some cases of violent offenders who are beyond change or incapable of making up for their crimes. Both sides focus on the uncertainty involved in each individual case. If a criminal is allowed to live, he/she may not change and instead do more harm. If a criminal is punished with death, there is no certainty of him/her committing more violent crime if punished with a lesser penalty. Provided that the system of enforcing criminal punishment is sound, the death penalty would be applied to individual offenders based on reasonable belief of being in a position that is beyond any existing intervention. The death penalty cannot return the victims to their situation before the crime, especially in cases of murder, but it could provide some form of peace or penance to the victims and/or their families. Considering the violent nature of the crimes punishable by death, a life sentence or a long sentence with a chance for release may not have the same effect as capital punishment. The possibility of reprisal towards the victims and their families also exists. Capital punishment is a way for society to get payback from heinous crime offenders. Although this purpose is controversial since vengeance is disdained in modern society, this is a purpose that the death penalty serves best. Its justification is the atrocious characteristic of the crime punished. Based on the manner that capital punishment addresses the five purposes of criminal justice, there appears to be a place for the death penalty in modern times. Given continuous developments in the criminal justice system, especially through the application of the death penalty in majority of the states, capital punishment would likely remain a part of crime punishments in the future. Read More