b. When DNA testing became more advanced prisoners that have always known they were innocent and serving long prison times or ones that were on death row for crimes that did not happen but were convicted of them as well as ones who were wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit these people started to petition for DNA testing. 2. The size and scope of the Wrongful Conviction Problem in the United States a. DNA testing is usually only done when it comes to high end capital cases because there is more to generate from which gives greater assistance to avoid executions. When it comes to assault, robbery, and burglary cases there will be typically more error due to eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence.
Due process protections under the Constitution force the state to fulfill its burden of proving its case against the accused. I personally prefer the due process model rather than the crime control model, The crime control model assumes guilt by fact. The person is guilty unless proven innocent. This is one of the downfalls of the Crime Control Model. The concern with this model is a quick and speedy conviction despite the innocence of the alleged criminal.
The judge will determine if the prosecution of defense has a stronger argument B. Defendants are released if enough evidence is not provided at preliminary hearing III. Arraignment A. Defendants are formally charged with the crime they are being held for B. The defendant enters a plea 1.
Therefore, by having sufficient evidence this would be enough to convict a criminal in the court of law. Crime control is based on handling crimes that occur with a quick and effective outcome. For example if the prosecutor does not have strong evidence to receive a conviction there is a slight chance the offender’s case will get dismissed. Therefore, emphasizing the capacity to arrest, and convict a high proportion of offenders in other words put the criminal in jail first and question later. However, with the “due process an individual is allowed their day in court if suspected of a crime because of United States constitution.
Unanimous verdicts remain requirements in federal criminal trials. Another advantage of the unanimous verdict is that it provides a level of certainty and comfort, to the citizens, that the jury was completely convinced, in total, of the defendant’s guilt. Certainly, the fact that all the jurors arrived at the same decision (guilty) must mean the defendant is guilty; or does it? Incidents of hung juries were lower when a unanimous verdict was not required, than when it
2003. p. 114). The prosecutor’s main roles are to establishing that those guilty are prosecuted, and to determine which cases are weak and weed them out. Meyer & Grant (2003) state that, “ the tasks that prosecutors perform fall into three broad categories: planning and supervising the investigation phase of criminal and civil cases, case preparations, and responding to the issues related to appeals. The defense attorney’s role is to protect an individuals right when he or she has been accused of committing a crime, and to ensure that the individual is not prosecuted unjustly or falsely tried. A prosecutor presents evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime and the defense attorney tries to prove that the defendant is not guilty.
Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong. In the United State’s Court Systems, the conventional method is for jurors as “evaluator of fact” and judges as the interpreter of the law and the instructor of the jury with regards to the application of the law. In an instance wherein the jury replaces its personal interpretation of the law and ignores the law fully to come up with a verdict, this results to jury nullification. In the courts, the commonly established perception of jury nullification is when a juror acknowledges power but has no right to nullify the law. Jury nullification is frequently practiced, but rarely occurs, in criminal trials and theoretically applicable to civil trials too – where it is focus to civil procedural solutions.
According to Terry Lenamon, expert Criminal Trial Attorney, the first, and most popular, is the “M’Naghten test.” Lenamon says, “Under M’Naghten, the determining factor is whether or not the defendant was (1) able to understand what he (or she) was doing at the time of the crime due to some “defect of reason or disease of the mind” or, (2) if he (or she) was aware of what they were doing, that he (or she) nevertheless failed to comprehend or understand that what they were doing was wrong” (Lenamon). With that in mind, think about how many inmates have not taken that test and have been wrongly convicted. The American Civil Liberties Union states, “Mental Health America, estimates that five to ten percent of all death row inmates suffer from a severe mental illness.” Furthermore, if these people could get tested, they would realize how many people are legally insane and do not deserve to be in jail, but rather a hospital. Consequently, some of the individuals sitting on death row may
The accused are innocent until proven guilty and cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime or crimes that he or she is being accused of. The accused have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford it one will be provided for them, they have the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to bail bond unless they are charged with murder or the court determines them a flight risk. The accused also have the right against self-incrimination meaning that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. Rule seven of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the accused must have a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the facts constituting the offense they are being charged with. The accused have the right to counsel which means that under the sixth amendment the accused has the right to representation by an attorney.
In the United States, the promise of “justice for all” is for many citizens too often just a promise. At almost each point at which individuals enter the system – from the moment of initial arrest, to courtroom proceedings, and eventual re-entry, the criminal justice system badly needs reform. Though constitutionally entitled to counsel, many citizens charged with criminal conduct face court proceedings without benefit of reliable counsel. Defended rights are not equal, a wealthy defended has the resources to hire a private counsel and experts, where as the poor only have access to public defenders. Although equality of justice has long been an ideal of the American system of jurisprudence, it is manifestly impossible of realization.