Handling evidence properly is one of the most crucial points of any investigation. Without even intentionally doing so, mishandling of evidence could mean a case thrown out of court. Some types of mishandling of evidence would be planting of evidence, removing evidence, not following the chain of custody and unlawfully obtaining evidence. Rape cases should involve specially trained individuals, if an untrained investigator was to handle a rape case the way a homicide case was handled even more issues can arise. Reducing Ethical Considerations From arrival at a crime scene the investigator must follow only the facts and remove any emotion from considerations.
Therefore, a compromise must be made because it would be ideological to believe that there can be a government that bans the use of racial identification. Lastly, one must remember that all men are created equal legally and politically. In the field of law enforcement, police officers use certain techniques to describe individuals they pull over or arrest. One of the most controversial means of identifying people is racial profiling. This is “the practice by law enforcement of considering race as an indicator of the likelihood of criminal behavior” (Robinson 530).
The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures. (Woodfin, 2009) In addition, there are already several exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as “stop-and-frisk”, airport and school searches, voluntary searches, and emergency situations (Scheb, 2008) While these arguments supported the continued use of the exclusionary rule, there are also many argue against its value to our criminal justice system. One of the most
Although the challenge for all communities is to balance the extent of powers required by police against the rights of ordinary citizens. In the eyes of justice and to ensure fairness is reached offenders have personal rights that the NSW police need to adhere to, if the offender feels that their rights have been breached or not correctly followed by authority they have the right to complain and report the circumstance to an NSW ombudsman or the police integrity commission, as they will investigate the
It is important to the criminal justice system because a client should always have adequate representation. The issues that surround attorney-client privilege also make it very important to the court system. Some of the issues that exist because of the complexity of privilege are mainly questions such as in what instances should an attorney break that privilege, what if a client admits guilt of a crime, what about a client that conveys their intent to commit a crime. Admitting guilt of a crime that has already occurred is considered privileged information, however, a client that conveys their intent to commit a crime is not covered under the attorney-client privilege. It is an attorney’s obligation, in fact, to break that attorney-client privilege in order to prevent future harm (Meyer & Grant, 2003).
The movie “Death Wish” portrays a constant struggle between the due process and crime control models. The due process model of criminal justice expects a lawful fairness to all citizens. Also, this model attempts to protect a defendant’s rights more than the victim. It relies on authorities powers to be controlled by rules and procedures in order to prevent excessive use of their power. Also, it is important in this process to prove a person guilty by legally-found facts and evidence.
My personal stance on the current state of victims’ rights in America is that even though many states have changed their legislation for victims’ rights and protecting victims there is still work that needs to be done to protect the victims and their families from harm. In my opinion the 2004 Crime Victims’ Rights Act has been successful with out it there would be many more victims and families that would have to suffer and could have been victimized all over again had they not been granted protection from the accused, rights to notification, right not to be excluded from proceedings, right to speak at criminal justice proceedings, right to consult with the prosecuting attorney, right to restitution, right to a proceeding and free from unreasonable
The public needs to get involved more in changing what we all should see are flaws that still remain in the system. The 2004 Crime Victims’ Rights Act started to change the way the courts deal with the victim to a crime. It also opened the door for states to offer further protection to the victims as well. The issues still seem to be with the victim impact statements and what is permissible in court to be heard. The victims aren’t a recognizable party in the sense of a court proceeding.
This could be avoided if more caution was observed during the investigation process. Proper and accurate evidence should be the key to solving all investigations. An important piece of evidence is an eyewitness. Anyone can say he did it or she did it, but an eyewitness has to actually be at the scene of the crime and witness it taking place in order to stand and testify in a court of law as defined in The Oxford Dictionary.(“eyewitness”). Everyone has different features even if we are of the same race.
The development of rational policies in criminal justice is complicated by conflicting values—our commitment to due process of law and our determination to fight crime. Public opinion has long held that the court system is overly concerned with the rights of accused criminals. A majority of Americans believe that the Supreme Court has gone too far in protecting the rights of defendants in criminal cases and that the courts are more concerned with protecting these rights than the rights of victims. Yet although society needs the protection of the police, it is equally important to protect society from the police. Arbitrary searches, seizures, and arrests; imprisonment without hearing or trial; forced confessions; beatings and torture; tainted