Law Enforcement, Courts, and Corrections
Analyze a landmark court rulings explain how this case changed police practices to stay compliant with the law
Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) marked the hallmark of reforms in the American Criminal Justice System. The Supreme Court made a ruling that detained criminal suspects should be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney before any questioning by the police and must be against any form of self-incrimination. The 1966 US Supreme Court injunction came by as a result of Ernesto Miranda’s arrest in Phoenix resident in 1963 where he was charged with kidnapping, rape, and robbery with a lot of constitutional infringements in the process.
Despite allegedly admitting to having committed the crimes. Miranda was not at any point informed of his rights before the two-hour interrogation by the police. The case proceeded to trial with the prosecutor’s case consisting solely of the defendant confessions despite him having a history of mental illness. Later, Miranda was sentenced to close to 30 years in jail after being convicted of both kidnapping and rape (Kamisar, 2017).
After an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court failed, the US Supreme Court reviewed the case ruling that prosecution unconstitutionally used Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal proceeding since the police had collapsed on the go by not informing the defendant of his right to a lawyer and against self-incrimination. The 5-4 ruling by Chief Justice Earl Warren ascertained that the duty of the police to give clear warnings before an arrest is upheld by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Kamisar, 2017). The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment gives the accused a right to refuse to be a witness against self and further in the Sixth Amendment, criminal defendants are also guaranteed the right to an attorney.
The court also upheld that accused right against self-incrimination has been part of the Anglo American Law since time and memorial as a way of equalizing the detainee’s vulnerability inheritance. A breach of this can often lead to government abuse leading to high police incidences of violence by the police designed in a bid to compel suspects to admit their wrongdoings. The court thus maintained that these and other forms of intimidation deprive suspects of their fundamental rights and liberties leading to false confessions. Chief Justice Warren further noted that entitlement to an attorney is an equally important right to the defendant since the attorney’s presence during interrogations enables the accused to tell his side of the story without fear and intimidation.
Thus, the ruling changed the Criminal Justice landscape by ensuring that these rights are protected in the face of ignorance of the law by the police that was gaining momentum. Consequently, the court came up with statements which the police are expected by the law to tell a defendant facing detention or interrogation. These mandatory rights were named “Miranda Rights,” and they include the right to remain silent, and anything said can and will be used against (the accused) in a court of law. Further, the police are demanded by the law to inform the accused of his constitutional right to an attorney before any interrogations (Kamisar, 2017).
Explain one police patrol strategy and compare its strengths and weakness.
Community policing today is on the rise as most American police departments are deploying it as a crime prevention strategy at initial stages of a perceived criminal offense. Many communities are embracing the presence of police in the city as it becomes the norm in most societies around the world. Police deploy community policing in different ways ranging from bile patrols to police being engraved in community meetings (Lum and Nagin, 2015). Nevertheless, many have questioned the essentiality of this type of patrol has it has not been proven as an effective means of preventing and combating crime.
In-depth research has found community policing as an effective way of bringing the community together since it is a joint corporation between the police and community member. As opposed to other forms of patrol, which creates a gap between the two, the strategy brings the two together towards achieving a common goal that fosters a cohesive community. It is also an excellent crime deterrent strategy as police visibility, and community vigilance deters imminent crime for fear of being watched (Lum and Nagin, 2015).
Community policing is also an easy way to educate the community of the roles of the police and the public in crime prevention. Since the police are much friendlier in community policing, it makes it much easier for the public to approach them and learn a few tips on how to report crime once it is detected. The policing strategy also increases commitment to the community since once community members communicate, it will be the cornerstone for stronger ties and a high sense of community responsibility (Lum and Nagin, 2015).
Despite the strengths, a significant disadvantage of community policing is that it relies more on community involvement for it to be successful. For it to work, there must be a well-established and robust partnership between the community and the police. Without community involvement and trust, the policing strategy is bound to fail. It thus requires long term commitment for everyone involved and doesn’t work best for quick fixes. Another undoing to community policing is ensuring that the right people head the project. The strategy should focus on bettering the community rather than benefiting individuals (Lum and Nagin, 2015).
Overall, community policing is more of a philosophy than a program. If the philosophy is not understood by everyone involved, then the whole program is bound to fail (Lum and Nagin, 2015). The strategy works if the affected community embrace the move and work together with the police to ensure its success. The greatest obstacle to community policing and community-based programs at large is the change idea.
Analyze one era in American corrections and explain the weaknesses and strengths associated with this method.
The correctional eras in the US Criminal Justice System are essential in understanding how the country’s penitentiary system has progressed over time. Prisons have been part of the US correctional system for over 200 years, and before punishment was more corporal as after the prosecution, the criminals were exposed to humiliation and sometimes faced even death. The correctional eras include; penitentiary, mass prison, reformatory, industrial, punitive, treatment, community-based, warehousing, and finally just desert era.
1967-1980 marked the community-based era as correctional system shifted from the prison to the community as the basis being deinstitutionalization, decarceration, and diversion. The underlying concept, however, was that rehabilitation could not be entirely made possible away from society. To complete the rehabilitation process, the prisoners were expected to transform smoothly into mainstream society (Alarid, 2016).
The cost issue was one of the primary reasons for the rise of this era as community programs cost less compared to prisons and jail. As offenders spent some part of their sentencing at home by taking part in residential facilities, they helped to subsidize the high cost of living in the prisons. Through restitution and community service, the offender may also be forced to part with the victim’s compensation. The community-based era was also crucial in helping decongest the prisons that were overcrowded with convicted offenders. The community-based programs during the era also aided in the process of re-entry after a lengthy period of being incarcerated. The programs acted as a pre-trial release option where the offender’s actions could be monitored before his or her release (Alarid, 2016).
Although the era was marked with several opportunities, its major disadvantage was that there was a massive concern on public safety. Offenders were highly susceptible to criminal behavior compared to if they were confined in prisons. The era, therefore, required high supervision for it to be successful and to reduce recidivism rates (Alarid, 2016).
Analyze the dual court system in the United States and explain the advantages and disadvantages of a duel system?
A dual court system is a structure of judiciary that uses two court systems that are independent of the other with one court system operates at the local level while the other conducts its activities at a national level. The US and Australia boast of the world’s longest-serving dual court systems (Sutton, 2015).
In the US, the dual court system is comprised of the federal court and the state court. The dual court system was a way of ensuring a system of checks and balance existed through power separations in the judiciary. The jurisdiction of the federal court includes cases involving federal laws ordained by the Congress and also deals with matters whose court decisions may affect several states and involves interstate crimes and other major crimes like drug smuggling and counterfeit. Supreme Court jurisdiction also allows the court to handle cases involving disputes among states, foreign countries or citizens and US citizens. However, to enforce their decisions, federal courts need a strong work relationship with executive agencies (Sutton, 2015).
The state court, on the other hand, deals with a case not falling under federal courts’ jurisdiction for instance cases on family law, contract law, lawsuits involving same state parties and all violations of local and state laws (Sutton, 2015).
The main aim of the dual court system was to maximize the protection of individual’s rights and liberties. The first judicial intervention is the state courts, and they ensure liberties’ security by construing local and state powers narrowly and interpreting individual rights provided by the constitution broadly (Sutton, 2015). Suppose the state court fails to protect these liberties, the federal courts may step in to enforce federal constitutional regulations on the power of the state. The dual system also limits the overreaching federal influence, which could have been enjoyed by the federal court. Another advantage is that state courts can tailor their courts to effectively shape the decisions and laws to fit local communities’ needs (Sutton, 2015).
A significant downside of the court system is that it can result in criminals facing double prosecutions as they may be tried separately in both state and federal courts. Another central tension of the dual system is the clash of jurisdictions as state court jurisdiction may differ with federal jurisdiction complicating the appeals process (Sutton, 2016).
References
Kamisar, Y. (2017). The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later. BUL, Rev., 97, 1293.
Lum, C., & Nagin, D. S. (2017). Reinventing American policing. Crime and justice, 46(1), 339-393.
Alarid, L. F. (2016). Community-based corrections. Cengage Learning.
Sutton, J. S. (2016). State Constitutions in the United States Federal System. Ohio St. LJ, 77, 195.