Essay, Pages 6 (1500 words)
Identify several sources of rights
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people. There are many types of rights in our society. In addition to the Constitution, court decisions and statutes are important sources of rights, and so are state constitutions. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure sometimes shed light on and clarify important rulings handed down by the U.
S. Supreme Court. Additionally, the Federal Rules set forth the criminal procedure guidelines that federal criminal justice practitioners are required to abide by.
What is the incorporation controversy
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which holds that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” has been used by the Supreme Court to make certain protections specified in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.
This is known as incorporation.
What rights have been incorporated? What rights have not
There are four leading views on the incorporation debate. First, the total incorporation perspective hold that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the entire Bill of Rights. The second leading view on incorporation is that of selective incorporation, which favors incorporation of certain protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights, not all of them. The third view on incorporation can be termed total incorporation plus. It holds that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the whole Bill of Rights as well as additional rights not specified in the Constitution, such as the “right to privacy.
In what ways can theory differ from reality
We are taught that the courts and the Supreme Court in particular are charged with interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States. We are further taught that law enforcement should accept such interpretation uncritically and without much thought or reflection. While this is mostly true, theory and reality can still differ for at least four reasons. First, the Supreme Court sometimes makes decisions on excruciatingly detailed matters which have almost no applicability to most law enforcement officers most of the time. Second, the Supreme Court frequently hands down restrictive decisions that would seem to alter the face of law enforcement forever, but that involve issues already addressed by many police agencies. Third, the courts sometimes hand down decisions that can be effectively circumvented or ignored by the police. Finally, what the courts say and the police do can differ simply as a consequence of this nation’s legal system.
Compare and contrast the due process and crime control perspectives
The two models of crime that have been opposing each other for years are the due process model and the crime control model. The due process model is the principle that an individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. Any person that is charged with a crime is required to have their rights protected by the criminal justice system under the due process model. The crime control model for law enforcement is based on the assumption of absolute reliability of police fact-finding, treats arrestees as if they are already found guilty.
Explain the federal court structure
The structure of the federal courts consist of the Supreme Court, the Federal Courts of Appeal, and the Federal District Courts. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system because it hears appeals from state courts as well as federal courts. The Supreme Court has nine justices and begins its term on the first Monday in October of each year. The Supreme Court hears most cases on appeal. If four of the nine Justices agree to issue a writ, the Court will hear the case. The Court also has limited “original jurisdiction” in some cases. The Federal Courts of Appeal are divided into twelve different regions, often known as “circuits”. These courts are often known as “circuit courts”. Eleven of the twelve circuit courts handle cases from different states. The Federal District Courts consist of 94 judicial districts across the country, including judicial districts in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.
How does a case arrive at the U. S. Supreme Court
In order to have a case heard by the Supreme Court, a person must file a “petition for a writ of certiorari,” asking the Court to review a case and issue an order, called a writ of certiorari, to the lower appellate court requesting the relevant files and transcripts be sent to the Supreme Court. State-level cases can arrive at the Supreme Court if they raise a federal question, which is usually a question concerning the U. S. Constitution. The same rule applies to cases moving up through the federal courts. The U. S. Supreme Court decides whether it wants to hear the case. The party seeking a decision by the U. S. Supreme Court must file documents with the Court, asking to be heard. If the Supreme Court agrees the case is worth deciding, it issues what is known as a writ of certiorari. Four of the nine U. S. Supreme Court justices must agree to hear a case before a writ of certiorari will be issued. This is known as the rule of four.
Distinguish between a bright-line decision and case-by-case adjudication
A bright line decision is one where the Court hands down a specific rule, one subject to very little interpretation. The advantage of bright line rules is that they promote clarity and consistency. Also, they are easily understood by criminal justice officials. A decision requiring case-by-case adjudication is quite different. In many cases, the Supreme Court refers to the concept, totality of circumstances. Totality of circumstances refers to all the facts and circumstances surrounding a case. Case-by-case decisions are preferable in some instances because it is rarely possible to know in advance all the possible twists and turns in a criminal case.
How are the terms subjective and objective used in criminal procedure
Police conduct that is considered subjectively reasonable, or characterized by subjective reasonableness, is conduct that would be considered reasonable by the police officer engaged in the conduct. Objective reasonableness, by contrast, refers to what a reasonable person (usually a reasonable police officer) would do or feel under the circumstances. A reasonable person would believe that an arrest without probable cause is unconstitutional.
In what ways have recent Supreme Court decisions shown increased faith in the police
The Warren Court handed down a number of decisions, particularly throughout the 1960s and 1970s, that provided extensive constitutional protections for criminal defendants. When Justice Rehnquist assumed the position of Chief Justice in 1987, the decisions handed down by the Court in the area of criminal procedure began to take on a different orientation. This new orientation placed a great deal of faith in the police.
What is judicial restraint? How does it compare to judicial activism
Judicial restraint is the philosophy of limiting decisions to the facts of each case, deciding only the issue or issues that need to be resolved in a particular situation. At the other end of the spectrum is judicial activism. A judicially active judge is one who sees his or her role as more than interpreting the Constitution or laws.
Is privacy a right? If not, why is it so important in many Supreme Court opinions
In the past, the Court required a physical intrusion by authorities into a person private property. This was known as the “trespass doctrine. ” People did not enjoy a right to privacy unless the police or other government officials physically trespassed on their property. Nowadays, fortunately, privacy has been extended to encompass more than personal property. The trend toward increased personal privacy is an interesting one because the Fourth Amendment, and the whole Bill of Rights for that matter, contains no mention of privacy. There is no constitutional right to privacy.
What happens, briefly, during the pretrial phase
Pretrial is basically the procedures that take place to determine if an actual trial will be necessary and to get both sides on the same page. This involves the prosecution, and the defense briefly presenting their case to the judge. The judge will then decide weather there is enough support to take the case to trial, and sometimes the judge can dismiss the case if he/she feels there was no probable cause for arrest. It may vary by state.
What happens, briefly, during the adjudication phase
During the adjudication phase, a arbiter or judge reviews evidence and arguments from opposing parties and basically comes to a decision.
What happens, briefly, beyond conviction
The criminal process does not necessarily end once the verdict has been read. Sentencing usually takes place at a separate hearing. The guilty party may be sentenced to death, committed to prison, fined, or subjected to a host of other possible sanctions, such as probation which is common most of the time.
Cite this essay
Criminal Justice System in America. (2020, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/criminal-justice-system-in-america-essay