Abstract
The dynamic nature of crime and advancement in technology has prompted the modernization of criminal justice administration through the adoption of recent technologies. This has been driven by the recent developments in basic and information science which facilitate the investigation of crimes and also in judicial decision making.
Concerns regarding the interference of technology with the constitutional rights of individuals dating back to several decades ago when the development of wiretapping technology which was used in detection and investigation of the crime was viewed as a violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution since wiretapping without judicial warrant amounted to unreasonable search and seizure. The US constitution aims at protecting the rights of its citizens. The key role that surveillance has played in crime handling especially in terrorism crimes cannot be understated. A similar pattern is also true for forensic DNA technology. This technology has resulted in significant benefits for law enforcement; it has irrefutably contributed to the resolution of a significant number of crimes and the exoneration of wrongfully convicted persons. With proper planning, organization, and control, incorporating advanced technology in the criminal justice system can become one of the most valuable tools in law enforcement.
Introduction
The dynamic nature of crime and advancement in technology has prompted the modernization of criminal justice administration through the adoption of innovative technologies. This has been driven by the recent developments in basic and information science which facilitate the investigation of crimes and also in judicial decision making. As shown in Appendix 1, although these technologies have played a significant role in fighting against crime in society, criticisms have been raised regarding their effect on the constitutional rights of crime suspects, accused, convicts, and the public at large.
Does The Use of Technology Result in Abuse of Constitutional Rights?
Concerns regarding the interference of technology with the constitutional rights of individuals dating back to several decades ago when the development of wiretapping technology which was used in detection and investigation of the crime was viewed as a violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution since wiretapping without judicial warrant amounted to unreasonable search and seizure.
The US constitution aims at protecting the rights of its citizens. Article 1 and 3 of the US constitution and the 4th and 10th Amendments of the US constitution address the rights of those who have been suspected, those who have been accused, and those who have already been convicted. The constitutions further create provisions that protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence, forced self-incrimination among other issues that ensure that individuals are protected from tyrannical systems of governance that often utilize the criminal justice system to rid themselves of political dissidents (Anonymous, 1998).
The key role that surveillance has played in crime handling especially in terrorism crimes cannot be understated. However, the use of the same often results in compromising the privacy and liberty of US citizens who have not engaged in any criminal activity. Indeed, the American Civil Liberties Union argues that constant watch by a plethora of computers, cameras, sensors, wireless communication, GPS, biometrics among other technologies serves to threaten the privacy of innocent individuals (Siegel, 2008). The fourth amendment of the US constitution states that;
the rights of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath and affirmation describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be searched (Anonymous, 1998 p 9).
Surveillance cameras, concealed weapon detectors, and listening devices are often used to screen and observe all individuals in a particular area regardless of the presence of a probable cause hence violating the fourth amendment and the privacy of all the residence of a particular area. In addition, they may affect the social freedom of individuals who feel that they are constantly under watch requiring them to adjust accordingly.
A similar pattern is also true for forensic DNA technology. This technology has resulted in significant benefits for law enforcement; it has irrefutably contributed to the resolution of a significant number of crimes and the exoneration of wrongfully convicted persons (Krimsky, 2010). However, aggressive promotion of DNA technology in the United States under the rubric of public safety coupled with the gradual erosion of basic privacy and due process protections has resulted in a system where an increasing number of innocent people are being identified, tracked, and monitored by way of their DNA. Consequently, DNA technology has emerged as an instrument for surveillance that victimizes individuals who have never been charged or convicted for crimes.
Conclusion
However, as Conser et al. (2005) observed, with proper planning, organization, and control, incorporating advanced technology in the criminal justice system can become one of the most valuable tools in law enforcement. For instance, less-than-lethal restraining technology reduces the need for deadly force against extremely aggressive criminals while investigative technologies assist in evidence gathering and criminal prosecution. This serves to simplify the criminal justice process hence promoting timely justice delivery.
Reference List
Anonymous, 1998. Criminal Justice, New Technology, and the Constitution OTA Project Staff. Web.
Conser, A. J., Russell, D. G., Paynich, R. (2005). Law Enforcement in United States. Mississauga: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Krimsky, S., Simoncelli, T., (2010). Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal Investigations and Civil Liberties. New York: Columbia University Press.
Siegel, L. J., (2008). Criminology. New York: Cengage Learning.
Appendix 1
