Criminal Procedure Policy

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan

I am going to discuss due process and various crime control models relating to criminal procedure policy. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment will be explained regarding their role in criminal procedure policies as well. Lastly I will discuss the Bill of Rights and the relevance to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state. Due process is protected as part of our Fifth Amendment rights. Under the Due process model the most important function of criminal justice should be to provide due process or fundamental fairness under the law. The focus in this model is aimed on the defendant’s protected rights under the Bill of Rights and the belief is that police power should be highly limited to prevent oppression of the individual person. The government shouldn't hold a person guilty solely on the basis of the facts; a person should be found guilty only if the government follows legal procedures in its fact-finding. The due process model has been referred to as an “obstacle course”. (Cliff’s notes 2009)
The Crime control model suggests that the repression of crime should be the most important function of criminal justice because order is a necessary condition for a free society. Also, this model favors victim’s rights over the rights of the defendant, and anything that complicates matters for police should be eliminated. The accused is often thought of as guilty already in this model and the justice system is thought of as a conveyor built of justice, swiftly moving the defendants along to their case disposition. The main objective of the criminal justice process should be to discover the truth or to establish the factual guilt of the accused. (Cliff’s notes 2009)
The crime control model has more of a conservative basis than that of the due process model which has a liberal value to it. The law can only extend its arms so far. They cannot abuse their powers and must keep in mind that people have the right to a reasonable amount of privacy under the Constitution. There is a delicate balance in trying to respect the individual’s privacy and rights that we all have as United States citizens and also keeping the public safe at the same time.
Crime control model is based on factual guilt whereas the due process model is based on actual guilt. The Crime Control Model seems to be run like a dictatorship. It seems like a method that may have started out with good intentions only to not work out that way in the end. Within the Crime Control Model there is no innocence until proven, and the police and prosecutors are always deemed to be right. Justice seems to hang on the edge of impeding on civil rights violations as well as many and freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. (Misha, 2005)
The Fourteenth Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment means a lot of different things for different people. For some people it justifies same sex marriage, for others it holds a more conservative meaning. Personally I interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as a guarantee put in place by our founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that grants individuals who are citizens the rights to be secure. Basically that being a lawful citizen should allow us the rights to be safe and secure in the knowledge that due process and equality are on our side and we may not be unfairly subjected to radical action by law enforcement or any member of the criminal justice system.
The Fourth Amendment is The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This should always be upheld and not taken for granted or superseded by things such as the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Fifth Amendment is no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Sixth Amendment is In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Both models that I have mentioned are effective in the criminal justice system in their own ways and both bring positive and negative aspects to the criminal justice system. I believe that it is never acceptable to treat criminals or defendants as second class citizens as we all have certain rights as human beings. The uniform treatment should always be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, and ideally police officers should not pass judgment on the individual before he is give a fair trial. Unfortunately things do not always happen in a fair and correct way. That is why the Constitution and The Bill of Rights are so important to have and preserve as a guideline to basic rights that we stand for in this country. We cannot give up our freedom for the promise of false security, nor can we treat those citizens that choose to break the laws inhumanely, that would not say much about us as a country. Justice can be served in a honest righteous way.

Victims rights

“Evil requires the sanction of the victim.” Ayn Rand

A victim is defined as anyone who is harmed by another person. The victim is sometimes swindled or tricked, harmed or killed, deprived of their belongings, there are many ways a person can become a victim. Victims have historically played some type of role in the criminal justice system.
The Modern Crime Victims’ Rights Movement began more than 30 years ago and aspired to improve the treatment of crime victims in the criminal justice system. This Movement has since evolved into “one of the most successful civil liberties movements of recent times.” Since 1973 thirty-three states have amended their constitutions to include rights of crime victims. These rights include, the right to information, the right to be present at criminal justice proceedings, the right to dues process and the ability and right to be heard at criminal proceedings. Victims also have the right to be compensated monetarily for the loss that was a result of the crime that they were the victim of, the right to protection and privacy for the victim and their family. The Victims' Assistance Legal Organization (VALOR) became prominent as its founder, Frank Carrington, helped to develop and promote civil litigation on behalf of crime victims. (NCVLI, 2009)
The victim’s rights movements in the United States have brought about some important and significant changes worth mentioning. The development of a field called Victim logy was established by these movements and the introduction of state victim compensation programs. The rise of activism and the woman’s movement accompanied the victim’s movement. The interest in victim logy correlated with increasing concern about crime in America in the late 1960s. The crime wave of the time led to the formation of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1966, which conducted the first national victimization surveys that, in turn, showed that victimization rates were far higher than shown in law enforcement figures – and that many non-reporting victims acted out of distrust of the justice system. (Young , & Stein , 2004)
The idea that the state should provide financial reimbursement to victims of crime for their losses was initially propounded by English penal reformer Margery Fry in the 1950s. It was first implemented in New Zealand in 1963 and Great Britain passed a similar law shortly thereafter. Victim compensation and reimbursement is a part of restorative justice in some ways to attempt to set right the victim that has been wronged and monetarily pay them back. Restorative justices generally comes directly from the criminal not through the state.
Parents of Murdered Children were founded by Charlotte and Robert Hullinger in 1978 in the aftermath of the murder of their daughter by her ex-boyfriend. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was co-founded in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat offender drunk driver, and by Cindi Lamb, whose infant daughter was rendered a quadriplegic by a repeat offender drunk driver. According to Cindi Lamb, “Probably one of the foremost strategies is giving the victim a face, and the face of the victim was [in her case, her quadriplegic infant daughter] Laura Lamb. She was the poster child for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, because even though she couldn't move, she moved so many people.” The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was established in 1984 to help find missing children and provide support to their families. (Young , & Stein , 2004)
Restorative justice is intended to be a process that heals the victim and is personal because it comes from the offender, the person who committed the wrongdoing against the victim to begin with. In 1974, LEAA grants to the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department and then the Indianapolis Police Department helped open this new sector of the movement. Others followed suit. Many of the police-based programs were inspired by the work of two men. Victim’s advocates are a fixture at almost all agencies now. The victim’s advocates are trained individuals that usually have a heart for assisting victims that have been traumatized by the offender.
The victims of crimes now have a voice and an advocate; there are many ways to deal with the aftermath of being a crime victim. There are agents and caring individuals willing to help victims and there are also the civil courts that will assist in seeking monetary awards for the victims of a crime. The criminal justice system has embraced the opportunity to help make the victim whole again in my opinion.

Plea bargins

Plea bargaining is when a prosecutor offers the defendant in a criminal case the chance to plead guilty to a lesser offence and avoid sitting through a lengthy trial and possibly getting the maximum sentence if found guilty for the original charge. Plea bargains are good for defendants because the have the opportunity to negotiate an exact sentence that they will serve or in the case of a potential death penalty case if the circumstance is right they may be able to plea out of the death penalty in exchange for a life sentence. Recent legislative changes have led to an estimated 85 percent of nonviolent offenders being sentenced to some form of intermediate sanctions program, such as day fines, intensive probation services, electronic in-home monitoring or shock incarceration. Longer sentences and prison overcrowding led to a boom in building new jails and prisons in the '90, but about 10 years ago, fueled by the high costs of incarceration, a backlash developed against long prison sentences for nonviolent offenders. As public opinion began to change, more legislators were able to support alternative sentencing without fear of being labeled "soft on crime." Plea bargaining is relates to sentencing in the way that it does save the government and state if we avoid going to trial and can still reasonably punish the criminals. I am for the most part in agreement with plea bargains except in the cases involving heinous crimes against children and capital murder of course. Plea bargains are also usually the best bet for the criminal. The only problem is when the plea bargain is to lenient and the offender is available to re offend and hurts someone else because they got off on a lenient plea.

8th amendment

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

The eighth amendment in constitution provides protection against excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The eighth amendment is tricky when discussing capital punishment that is still practiced in the United States of America. The problem lies in the interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment. Some may argue that taking the life of another human being is cruel and unusual punishment and simply not something that man should be able to do to another man. There are religious and moral implications to this issue every time it is brought up. I consider myself a conservative, open minded Christian that is pro life but also pro capital punishment. That took several years for me to reach the conclusion that I did indeed support the death penalty. Regarding the eighth amendment and its impact on sentencing there will never be a consensus either way in my opinion. This is an issue that will remain divided until it is either outlawed or mankind goes extinct. The criteria for capital punishment are dependent on the severity of the crime and some argue that race or economic status plays a role I disagree with this. I think if executions were carried out more swiftly they would have more of a deterrent effect on society. The bottom line is that if an individual commits a crime there will be consequences, sometime that means the death penalty.

VICTIMS

Victims are defined as anyone who has suffered a loss or been victimized by another person. This can be any number of things such as personal property loss or damage, physically being violated, assaulted, or murdered. The role of victim affects the criminal justice system in more ways than can be counted. Victims have a story to share at most times during the sentencing phase, and have an impact as most judges take into consideration the personal affect that a crime has had on a victim. The criminal justice system itself tries to prevent crime from occurring by putting laws in place and consequences to deter behavior hopefully preventing some victimization from ever occurring. In the origins of criminal law, the victim and the prosecution were identical. In all legal systems, however, the historical development has led to the establishment of an official prosecution, while the victim’s role has been reduced to that of a witness. Victims have certain rights within the criminal justice system, typically a crime is committed, law enforcement is notified, an investigation takes place where witness statements and victim statements are taken. The offender is usually arrested or charged at this point, the prosecutor evaluates the case, a preliminary trial is conducted and it is decide if the case will go to trial, if there is a trial that happens in superior court and victims usually give testimony. Victims have rights to information, protection, notice, privacy and prompt disposition throughout this whole process. Victim’s advocates are now a part of most all agencies and there function is to assist the victim of a crime that may not be familiar with the process of getting justice for the crime that has occurred. Victims are in some cases entitled to monetary restitution that can be sought and granted in a civil suit against the offender.

Victimless crimes.......ummmmm NO

Public order crimes are those criminal acts that simply do not fit in with what society deems acceptable. These crimes are in opposition to moral beliefs and standards of action that most of us “good people” possess. Moral values are the commonly accepted standards of what is considered right and wrong. Public order crimes are widely viewed as harmful to the public good or harmful and disruptive to a community's daily life. Pornography is one thing, then there is the more serious behavior, paraphilia is sexual behavior considered bizarre or abnormal, such as voyeurism (spying on another for sexual pleasure) or pedophilia (sexual desire involving children). Now these are disturbing to me and most people I would guess but they are crimes that unless expanded on or acted or further that “don’t hurt anyone”. I find great fault with this theory, I think that in most cases these public order crimes do lead to bigger crimes especially dealing with lust and depravity. Sexual addiction for instance is a very real issue in today’s society and can lead a person down some dark roads. Some argue that victimless crimes such as prostitution, pornography, and illegal drug sales should be legalized then controlled and taxed like the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Those with a different point of view stress that there is no such thing as victimless crime. They argue that prostitution and pornography are degrading and often dangerous. Drugs destroy individuals and their families, often leading to thievery for drug money, and even death from drug overdoses. I have to agree that there is no such thing as a victimless crime, it spills over into the lives of us all. I do not think the decriminalization is the answer for crimes such as drug use or prostitution and what it always comes down to for me is the moral aspect involved in endorsing this behavior.

ASSET FORFEITURE

The primary mission of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is to employ asset forfeiture powers in a manner that enhances public safety and security. This is accomplished by removing the proceeds of crime and other assets relied upon by criminals and their associates to perpetuate their criminal activity against our society. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals. The Federal Asset Forfeiture Program is normally used when a case does not meet the minimum requirements of the State Asset Forfeiture Program or when a district attorney is unable to file a forfeiture case. If federal and state legislature did not include asset forfeiture then the authorities may not be able to react quickly and cut off the criminal’s funding, the authorities can freeze the bank accounts of these individuals. All the proceeds from the sale of assets that are forfeited such as property, vehicles, and businesses and so on are then used by law enforcement to assist in better training and equipment. That sounds fair to me, if you don’t want your assets seized then obey the law. I think the main goal of these laws is to deter criminal activity and also make more resources available to law enforcement. Anti drug legislation has evolved over the years and changed. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals