Criminal Procedure Policy Essay

By the year 2003, over 300 million persons lived in the US.100 million of these persons were made up of the minority communities. Notably, a number of the minority community members are not aware of the existing criminal procedure policies.

Regardless of whether the minority or the majority communities are opposed to or support the criminal procedure policy models, the truth of the matter is the regulations govern all people, communities, states, regions, and the federal government equally (Dressler & Michaels, 2010). Without them, the US would be in anarchy and injustice would be prevalent.

This article illustrates the likeness and dissimilarities between the Due Process of law and the crime control models. Equally, evaluations of how the two models have affected the American criminal procedure policies are highlighted. The 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, and the 14^th amendments to the constitution are assessed. In the final part, the appropriateness of the Bill of Rights to the states with respect to the 14^th Amendment is illustrated.

The two models contain legal principles, which are useful to all the divisions of the criminal justice system, judicial employees, and the communities (Ashworth & Redmayne, 2005). The Due process of law centers on safeguarding the individuals’ rights and liberties.

To achieve this, the Due process of law lessens the law enforcers’ powers, restricts laws, and mandates every expert to tolerate and pursue the official procedures when initiating a criminal case. On the contrary, the crime control model’s main purpose is to safeguard the society by executing an efficient ways of law enforcement using a number of tactics and the trial of criminals.

The models prohibit law enforcement officers from applying individual attitudes, unfairness, and discrimination in criminal justice situations. A major dissimilarity between the two forms is that the crime control model presumes that an individual is culpable before he or she is arbitrated.

On the other hand, the other model presupposes that an individual is blameless until he or she is confirmed accountable. Similarly, the crime control model endeavors to transfer the suspects through the criminal justice system in the same manner a conveyor belt transfers goods from one system to the other. Through this, it shuns the use of plea bargains and petition by all possible means. The conveyor belt philosophy lessens court clogging enabling them to adjudicate more cases.

The public sees this as a chief benefit because eliminates and penalizes a large number of criminals in an appropriate way. Its opponents perceive the Due process of law as an impediment that slows the trials because it provides the suspects with redundant protections. The proponents of the Due process of Law perceive it as a risk reducer of errors because the model endeavors not to penalize the blameless by thwarting and eradicating corruption and favoritisms in every situation.

The US has experienced periods in the past that enabled each of the two models to dictate the criminal justice system. For example, the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, and the 14^th amendments have been recreated and shaped by the landmark rulings in the past (Hudson, 2002). With respect to the US constitution, the fourth amendment presents a range of vital protections.

The amendment assures all persons the right to be protected with respect to their privacy, houses, and papers. Law enforcement officers ought to institute credible grounds before acquiring a merit to search and seize or detention. In a landmark ruling named County of Riverside v. McLaughin (1991), A US court ruled that taking into custody a person for more than 48 hours after being apprehended without probable grounds is an infringement of his or her 4^th Amendment Rights.

The fourth Amendment was approved because there was a need to reduce the abuse of the law enforcers during the American Revolution. Today, the police officers are required to acquire a warrant of arrest and warrant of seizure from the magistrates Law enforcement officers before any apprehending anyone.

The Fifth Amendment is considered as a vital protection offered to all Americans. Unlike other amendments, the Fifth Amendment mandates the law enforcers to notify the accused of some assured constitutional protections.

Through this, law enforcers are mandated to inform suspects prior to a custodial questionings are undertaken that they have the right to remain quiet. By doing so, the suspects are stopped from giving the police officers with self-incriminating proofs. Furthermore, law enforcement officers ought to notify the suspects that they have rights to access legal representation when they are being questioned.

On the occasion when a suspect cannot meet the expense of the legal counsel, the state lawyer will represent him or her free of charge. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment safeguards an individual from being arbitrated twice or the same offense. Through this, it safeguards the Due Process of Law. A landmark ruling that had significant effects on this amendment was Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

The Sixth Amendment warrants a suspect the right to a prompt trial, the right to be arbitrated by a judge, the right to be educated about the accusations brought forward, the right to interrogate all eyewitnesses, and the right of have an attorney. A landmark case that had tremendous effects on the Sixth amendment was Smith v. Hooey (1969).

In the case, the suspect had been imprisoned for 7 years. On a petition to the US Court, the defendant asserted that the state had infringed on his Sixth Amendment Right to prompt trial. Leading to the petition, the court dropped the allegations because the state had failed to prosecute the case in time.

With respect to the constitution, the 14^th Amendment is relevant to all persons, in spite of state decrees and dealings. The 14^th amendment has features of the Bill of Rights (Levy, 2000). This safeguard is perceived as a guarantee by the US Government to treat all persons in the same way.

The amendment offers equivalent rights to all persons but not equivalent protections. These rights are only relevant to all local governments. Before 14^th amendment, the public was solitary safeguarded from the federal government. After the amendment, persons were protected from the federal government, the states, and political leaders. In addition, the amendment protects individuals from being dispossessed of lives, liberties, or properties in the absence of the Due Process of Law by the government or state.

With careful analysis of the Due Process of Law and Crime control models, an individual can attest to the fact that every model has had an advantage to persons, the public, and the criminal justice system. The 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, and 14^th amendments are perceived to be extremely precious because as each protects people from bumping into unfair trials.

References

Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2005). The criminal process (3rd ed.). Oxford England: Oxford University Press.

Dressler, J., & Michaels, A. C. (2010). Understanding criminal procedure (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis.

Hudson, D. L. (2002). The Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers.

Levy, L. W. (2000). Origins of the Bill of Rights. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.