Essay on criminal justice
To begin with, criminal justice is complicated legal institution , which intended to bring next three core functions: 1) to control crime; 2) to prevent crime; 3) to provide and maintain justice. Pretty comprehensive and at the same time simple definition of appropriate institution is given by Bianchi Herman, who states: “criminal justice is a kind of system intended to apprehend alleged wrongdoers, determine whether these persons have indeed committed crimes, and punish those who are found guilty according to society’s wishes” (Herman, 72). To get outlined tasks, different methods and principles can be applied. The combination of them determines the model of criminal justice. In this paper, we’ll try to examine “due process” in criminal justice, by making the emphasize to its nature, meaning, application in different fields, and existing problems.
The first to begin is the historical background. Quite interesting historical excursus is made by Gora, J. and F. Haiman, who wrote: “The American colonists seized upon the phrase, incorporating it into all the state charters and almost every document surrounding the American revolution and Constitutional Convention. Historical records from those time periods seem to indicate the founding fathers thought of due process as fairness” (Gora and Haiman, 12). Herewith, the first manifestations of due process genesis can be found in ancient Chinese, Greek, Roman, and even Egyptian cultures.
Speaking about due process, most of us make references to fairness, equality, and degree of justice in both procedures and outcomes. The concept of fairness is the most important from mentioned list. Herewith, the fairness should be extended to outcome, as well as any other stage of criminal justice process, f.e. evidences gathering. However, one theoretical problem appears at this part. The point is no one science or field of social relations is able to common definition. In addition, the differences of situation does not allow to put it in strict form of legal rules, prescriptions and principles. In this regard, the question «What is fair?» is the standpoint to begin dispute about due process. At this part, people are allowed to get one of two possible answers:
A system of rules so strict that even a few innocent people get unfairly punished;
A system not so strict that even a few guilty people go unfairly unpunished.
Due process in criminal justice holds that the second one is correct. In this part, words of Mott R., who reflects nature of due process, are to the place: “However, on the more important theoretical level, it depends on what kind of system you want to have – one that just rolls over people indiscriminately – or one that is individualized and takes into account the need for your society to expand freedom. The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process because it’s designed to be a “living document” that expands freedom” (Mott, 15).
Seeking to get background principle to due process in criminal justice, the next belief is the most suitable one – it is more desirable for society that ninety-nine guilty suspects go free than that a single innocent person be condemned. As any other legal institution, due process in criminal justice has its own features.
- Fairness is the core goal of the due process. It goes against the idea of a criminal justice system with unrestricted powers.
- The due process rejects the statement that human error in any process is inevitable.
- The due process relies just as heavily on the courts and their role in upholding the legal procedures of establishing guilt. The due process will to accept that a person who is factually guilty will go free if the criminal justice system does not follow legally prescribed procedures in proving her or his culpability (Vold, 50-51).
This is the general pattern of due process, as a set of principles that define core principles and values of criminal proceeding. To address the issues of its practical implementation in different sphere of criminal justice system, the references to U.S. Constitution should be made. Therefore, the due process rests on two Amendments – 5th and 14th.
Fifth Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Fourteenth Amendment – All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
These two basic legal prescriptions determine the peculiar properties as it is used in all branches of Criminal Justice. Let’s take some particular looks.
Law Enforcement authorities. The most important and significant point to talk about in this part is the issue of evidentiary proceedings. In fact, evidencing play the role of a mandatory link to provide fairness both in criminal justice’s procedures and final outcome. Talking about the results of due process implementation in law enforcement authorities’ activities, the concept of “burden of proof” cannot be left aside. Robert Mott mentioned next words: “The most basic rule of evidence is that the State bears the burden of proving . Unless and until that burden is carried by the State, the accused enjoys a presumption of innocence. This presumption is not a right, but a privilege that is attached to the way various “burdens” are laid out in evidence law” (Ramraj, 105). In this order, due process is also featured with burden persuasion, as all doubts are resolved in favor of accused. One more considerable point is the standard of proof. This means that that whomever has the burden of persuasion on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence must prove their points beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, this part deals with the list of legal delicacies that have to be kept to make evidences credible and valuable to case.
Courts. All previously noted issues about due process in law enforcements are relevant in this part also. However, it also important to notice that Courts play extremely important part in due process in general. This point is based on previously noted Courts’ duty of legal procedures of establishing guilt upholding. In this regard, Courts’ could be associated to some kind of a referee, whose primary task to keep a watch to ensure that rights (including procedural) of accused were not violated.
Correction. Speaking about this branch of criminal justice, it seems to be drastically different from two previous ones. The point is this stage of criminal justice does not involve the process of evidencing and guilt prove. It is all about “freedom expanding” and “civil rights keeping”. The most disputable issue at this part is the “freedoms” and “prison restrictions” ratio. As a result of controversies conflict, due process principles serve as a basis for numerous Courts’ decisions in favor of imprisoned: 1) The right to free speech (Procunier v. Martinez, 1974); 2) The right to freedom of association (Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, 1977); 3) Rights during disciplinary proceedings (Wolff v. McDonnell, 1974); 4) The right to privacy (Hudson v. Palmer, 1984); 5) The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976); 6) Rights of probationers and parolees (Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972) etc. It shouldn’t be said that the due process’ principles became the only background to appropriate decisions, however, the impact of doctrinal principles is still pretty noticeable.
Being directed to keep person’s rights and freedoms, due process in criminal is still strongly argued in respect to problems and challenges, which it has to face. The most significant claims against it is reference to due process’ inefficiency to carry out punishment function of criminal justice. In this part we may, Packer and his landmark “The Limits of the Criminal Sanction”, where two models for the American criminal justice system were found at first : the crime control model and the due process model. Herewith, Packer associated the due process model to an obstacle course rather than an assembly line. According to the author, rather than expediting cases through the system, as is preferable in the crime control model, the due process model strives to make it more difficult to prove guilt (Packer, 24). Roberts wrote that the due process model is skeptical about the morality and utility of the criminal sanction, taken either as a whole or in some of its applications. It perceives the use of sanctions being targeted at the economically and psychologically disadvantaged (Roberts, 8). Frankly, due process’ main problem in criminal justice is its meaning to serve as an obstacle to control crime, as value of punishment inevitability was replaced with priority of humans’ freedoms. In addition, some authors claim about its inequality, stating that due process is largely dependent on attorneys’ qualification: “As there cannot be equal justice if the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money at his disposal, the due process model holds that every man should have the same resources at his disposal to ensure that an effective and reliable defense is conducted. … The role of the lawyers is central to the model as they are needed to bring into play the remedies and sanctions which due process offers as checks against the operation of the system”(Sanders, 25).
To sum up, due process in criminal justice hardly might be called a perfect legal institution, considering significant problems with particular functions execution and maintenance. However, the question towards its advantageous alternative still remains disputable. Today, the only solution to cope with problems raised by due process direction is the return to crime control model, which assumes that the police are in a better position than the courts to determine the guilt of arrested suspects. Seemingly, such approach is unacceptable in the aspect liberal values protection. The point is crime control model of criminal justice can become a sufficient background to state’s oppression of freedoms and power usurpation. Appropriate measures will lead to the eradication of competitive process, which is world-wide proved to be the most adequate to provide balanced justice. Thus, due process still remains the most advanced principle of criminal justice’s standards. With all its problems, it is the only available solution to provide democracy in criminal proceeding and prevent the law enforcement authorities’ from being a tool of totalitarian influence to society.
