Simpson case is vital to the study of criminal justice and prosecution being that the restrictions that were obvious in the testimonies of the witnesses and evidence. As a consequence incorrect verdicts were made regarding the case for the reasons that there was evidence that could not be used like the blood samples and the detectives that gave testimonies that were ambiguous. Furthermore, before any case is taken to trial the state and the defense need to be absolutely certain that they have sufficient evidence in order to maintain their case, especially since a case can be dismissed based on the prima facie evidence provided. Studying this case has certainly changed my perspective because it was obvious that more was needed to be accomplished previous to closing remarks were
An example of the state committing an unjust act against the individual was evidenced in the recent Troy Davis case. Even if Davis was guilty, there was enough doubt for the state to delay his execution in order to determine the best course of action to take. This is just one widely recognized example, there might be many more examples of unjust acts committed by the state. Should for some reason Troy Davis had been broken out of prison against the will of the state, once again Socrates would not justify this. It's situations such as this that makes me not believe in legal obligation to the extent which Socrates does where it's almost absolute.
Trident University Criminal Justice System Procedures (CJA 502) Summer 2010 Module 1 - Case 19 July 2010 Module 1 – Case Does the Federal Grand Jury System need to be reformed? Being that “Grand juries listen to evidence and decide if someone should be charged with a crime (Brenner, 2003)”, I believe the Grand Jury System to be in need of a reform. The evidence the grand juries hear, unlike a trial jury, is against the accused without allowing the accused to refute the evidence with evidence of his or her own. Other issues of concern as to why I believe in reformation of the grand jury system include: embarrassment, fear, manipulation, uphold rights, misconception, and unfairness. Illustrated statements for each aforementioned
" This is a dangerous aspect of the three strikes law, reducing the courts power to consider individual circumstances could lead to unnecessarily long prison sentences for some but on the other hand will ensure hardened criminals don’t get off easy. Overall Shicor concludes that the three strikes law results in inefficient and unpredictable outcomes but I believe those results have more to do with the current construction of our legal
While the “crime control” model contemplates that, the criminal justice system has an adverse consequence and progressively stops the process of arresting people within the criminal justice system. The “due process model” is demonstrating that a suspect is guilty and is significant to keeping the government under control and protecting the rights of the suspect. The criminal justice system should be expending more financial resources to employ more law enforcement officers instead of building more prisons and rather than expending money, defending the rights of citizens is the thought of the crime control model (Zalman,
After the questioner the police officer will have to build a case with the evidences gathered and send a case with the evidences to CPS (Crown Prosecution Services). Then CPS could state whether it’s enough evidences gathered to take the person to court or it can state that there is not enough evidences. That where it comes to the bail. (www.findlaw.co.uk) The bail can be granted or denied it all depends what is the offence and whether the person can be dangerous if goes back to the society/community. If the person is arrested on suspicious of the murder that would be clearly obvious that the person wouldn’t get the bail, as that person could try to run away also could attempt more murders or even self-harmed.
Different areas had different standards where one area would decide to tick off another may choose to prosecute. The police were allowing too many weak cases to go to court, this lead to judge directed releases and not enough preparation time for cases as in R v Lawrence. It was the total non-existence of uniformity on which the Commission elected on total restructuring on prosecutions, and recommended the formation of a new independent prosecuting authority as an Act of Parliament. The term prosecution is stated
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
Criminal Procedure Criminal procedures are debatable on what is more effective and how to implement such policies. Due Process and Crime Control are two different models that explain the criminal procedure policy of the United States, and they will be discussed in this paper. Along with how the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments impact both of these models. The final subject of this paper will be how the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. The Due Process Model is a process that works on the assumption that the criminal justice system has errors, and because of those errors a defendant is not guilty until proven otherwise.