But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
It is difficult to hold prosecutors accountable for acts of misconduct. Since prosecutors are often viewed as the “good guys” by the public, many times unethical, as well as illegal acts will be tolerated by the courts and criminal justice system as a whole. Prosecutorial misconduct is considered any action taken by the prosecutor in a criminal case that is against the law and/or unethical. Prosecutorial evidence can be anything from harassing witnesses on the stand, pressing unfounded charges against defendants, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, up to taking bribes. Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
What are the problems with non-interrogatory forms of evidence? Choose two forms of non-interrogatory evidence to discuss. Having enough evidence is key in charging, prosecution and finally conviction of criminals, unfortunately most cases result in the police needing and wanting more evidence. Due to insufficient evidence the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not be pursued cases further, even if the police believe they have the right suspect. However there are other types of evidence collection apart from that of questioning, which falls under the title of non-interrogatory forms of evidence such as surveillance and scientific evidence.
“A formal justice system is one in which laws are set and enforced and punishments are administered by state institutions such as courts, police, judges and prisons” (Ask.) A justice system can possibly encourage deviance and crime because there are some people who do not like to follow the law. An example of this behavior can simply be driving under the influence of alcohol. In our society everyone knows that it is against the law to operate a motor vehicle in this condition but yet there are so many people still doing it. Crime will always be committed as police are not always looking over people’s shoulders to ensure people will not break the law.
In some states, the individual must be convicted of two serious felonies for the three strikes law to apply, while in others any felonies count towards the third strike. Critics of the three strike law express many strong arguments against their harsh legal statute. Our society has ultimately had an issue with the three strikes law. Some people have said that the law “destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge, it is unjust in certain conditions, and it adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive criminal system”
The ritualism of how we convict criminals usually does not help them in the long run; taking away their legitimate means for obtaining a job. The result is a rise of deviant subcultures. The bureaucratic rituals blind what is really at hand, “After the terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. postal Service continued to help deliver mail addressed to Osama bin Laden”-(Groups and Organizations Chapter 5): The role of the criminal justice system is so concerned with its rituals, it would contradict its sole purpose, so it could carry
Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
Police Powers Stop and question It’s one of the basic powers that police have. They can stop you at any time and ask you what you are doing here and why you are in this area or where you are going to. However you don’t have to answer any of those questions. Stop and search This is one of the most important powers of the police force and those include stopping persons and vehicles if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are carrying for example illegal drugs, a weapon or something that could be used in committing a crime. You can also be searched without ‘reasonable grounds’ if it has been approved by a senior officer and this can happen if you’re suspected of being in a specific location or area and if you’re carrying a weapon or have used one.
The very nature of police of criminal investigation in and of itself fosters and causes police discretion. The biggest advantages of police discretion is the interpretation of the law. Running Header: Police Discretion 3 Criminal law “has attempted to establish those forms of conduct which its members desire to be declared criminal” (Goldstein 1977). These laws are so many time written in very broad terms that vaguely define crimes which leaves the individual officer to decide if the criminal activity they are investigating meets the elements of the criminal code and to which extent. The written law simply does not cover all aspects of behavior that police officers will encounter (Wortley, 2003).