Criminal procedure is quite a complicated phenomenon in the judicial system, including various nuances. That is why the nationalization of this procedure, or constitutionalization, as called by law professors, was introduced in the last century. It included the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Case’s interpretation for extending the protections of the Bill of the Rights to states. Nationalization implies the creation of a single standard based solely on constitutional rights, which applies to the federal government as well as to the states. Although the nationalization revolutionized the vision of criminal procedure, it remains a controversial issue, so there are both supporters and opponents of this novelty.
On the one hand, nationalization helps better arrange the process and formulate an action plan that can be used anywhere in the country. According to Lippman (2018), “the development of consistent procedures is intended to ensure uniform and fair treatment for individuals wherever they live and whatever their backgrounds” (p. 22). It means criminal defendants are given similar rights by both federal and state governments and can gain the same protections.
All levels of government follow the instruction, which facilitates the process of criminal procedure. On the other hand, some claim that states should be allowed to develop their strategies. It is thought that the procedures appropriate for federal agents investigating fraud, environmental crime, or corporate abuse differ from the daily demands of police officers in a major city or small departments with a tight budget (Lippman, 2018). Thus, it is still unclear whether states should follow the same rules or be entitled to the freedom of making decisions.
It seems that greater flexibility is essential in conducting criminal procedures in various regions of the country. The universal algorithm of this procedure cannot show the same efficiency everywhere because different customs of how to deal with a crime have been developed in each state over the years. Supreme Court judges sitting in Washington, DC, may not possess the necessary experience in local government or law enforcement, so their good intentions may result in “handcuffing” the police and in frustrating police investigations (Lippman, 2018).
Thus, states should have the right to adjust the criminal procedure principles according to their experience in solving criminal issues. What is more, nationalization often leads to leaving victims without protection. In earlier times, judges could informally accommodate victims’ interests on an ad hoc basis, which means taking into account the specifics of a particular case. However, now it became more difficult for judges to make correct policy decisions. Therefore, the rights of victims, considered to be fundamental, should gain more attention, which implies the impossibility of establishing a universal criminal procedure.
Implementing the nationalization of criminal procedure allowed to equalize the rights of criminal defendants in different states and facilitated the process by formulating the sole action plan. Nevertheless, there are many opponents to conducting the same procedure at the federal and state levels. It is vital to remember that the victims’ rights are fundamental, and they should be prioritized. Thus, it seems illogical to regulate all cases with the same rules which are based only on constitutional rights. Therefore, it remains a disputed question of whether states must follow uniform procedures or they may make independent decisions on what practices to use and how to solve every issue.
Reference
Lippman, M. (2018). Criminal Procedure. SAGE Publications.