The Future of Crime in America, Research Paper Example

Abstract

This paper discusses the key points that allow the court to determine the lawfulness of the use of force. Also, the level of objectivity inherent to the key points mentioned is evaluated to ensure that understanding to the subject is achieved. In addition, this paper also focuses and discusses the fundamental difference between the castle doctrine and the stand your ground law with various examples given to support the response to the question posted.  Double jeopardy, the adversarial system, and the right to a speedy trial are also discussed in this paper. Definitions, examples and relevance to the judicial system are incorporated in this paper.

Lawfulness of the Use of Force

Every police officer is allowed, by the law, to use force in order to accomplish arrests, detention and even the servicing of a warrant. However, it is a known fact that there are several key points that have to be met first in order to permit force. In the case of Graham v. Connor (), the court established that the following key points determine the whether or not force is permitted: 1) The severity of the crime committed by or is being committed by the suspect as believed by the officer; 2) Whether or not the suspect posted an immediate threat to the officer’s or the public’s safety and; 3) Whether or not the suspect is trying to escape and is resisting arrest. The objectivity and rationality inherent to the key points of permissible force is grounded by the fact that the court knows that police officers, in certain situations, are compelled to make last minute decisions in situations that are intense, rapidly accelerating, where force is needed to apply to pacify the situation. It helps the court to determine if the police officers are using force based on their vision of hindsight or if they really knew what is transpiring at the time of the situation. In addition, in cases where the public safety or the officers’ live is at risk, the court is but right to give allowance for officers to use force. Hence, additional force is vindicated. However, it will be considered excessive force if the suspect is surrendering and willing to be arrested. Every person, regardless of whether or not a crime is committed, has basic human rights that need to be upheld.

Castle Doctrine vs. Stand Your Ground

Although both the Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground laws are both good criminal defenses, they are different. The fundamental difference between the two is the fact that the Castle Doctrine applies in the home of a person provided that such person is already inside the home while Stand Your Ground law applies outdoors. These laws are valid in their own sense. The Castle Doctrine law allows homeowners to protect themselves and their family members against an intruder using reasonable force provided that they are in the house already. For example if a homeowner is in his home, sleeping at night and a drunk person kicked in the door to get in the house, the homeowner can use reasonable force to protect his abode and will be held unaccountable for the bodily harm that may be implicated to the intruder. However, if the homeowner came home from work, standing outside his house and notices that there is someone in his house, he cannot draw his concealed weapon, enter the house and harm the intruder. In this situation, the homeowner should call 911 and wait for the police to arrive and be a good witness. Failure to do so will not protect the homeowner from any criminal charges that might arise from the situation. Undeniably, a person has the right to be safe in his own home. On the other hand, the Stand Your Ground law allows a person not back down and use reasonable force to protect himself in a place where he is rightfully allowed to be. For example, if a person is in a restaurant and another person started to threaten him with a knife, the person has the right to fight back to protect himself and will not be held accountable for any criminal charges. However, if there is no imminent threat of bodily harm, reasonable force will not be justified.

Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy prohibits a defendant from being prosecuted again in the courts on the same charges from which he was legitimately convicted or acquitted. The problem, however, in the principle of double jeopardy is that the framers of the Constitution might have failed to consider that there are certain cases that might need more than one trial. Hence, the rule is arbitrary in its own accord. Law should be rational. But to exclude sufficient new pieces of evidence relevant to the guild of a person once erroneously found guilty under the guise of double jeopardy to  is downright irrational and has the tendency to negatively impact the structure of the society (LaFree, et.al, 2000).

Adversarial System

The adversarial system is known for the following features: 1) The decision maker is passive and neutral; 2) Pieces of evidence as well as arguments can be presented by the parties to the case; 3) The trial of the cases is intended to highlight the dispute between the parties; 4) Equal opportunities are given to both parties to present and argue their disputes and; 5) Rules to promote professional conducts to avoid mistreatments. The rationale behind the adversarial system is to ensure that the search for the truth is based on evidence presented supporting the case and not just on the basis of bias (Blumstein & Rosenfeld, 1988). The perseverance of fairness in providing judgment is likewise highlighted. Without this, people are susceptible from mistreatment.

Right to Speedy Trial

The right to a speedy trial is a guaranteed right by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is a good shelter for defendants in such a way that it provides protection from lengthy unsubstantiated incarceration. It also lessens the anxiety level of defendants waiting from their case resolution and it also protects the defendants’ ability to defend the charges pressed against them. Meaning to say, the right to speedy trial lessens the chances of key witnesses and pieces of evidence disappearing. It is a known fact that memories may weaken over time and thus, the right to a speedy trial gives the defendants proper trial. However, the downfall to this right is that there is no specified time wherein prosecutors must take defendants to trial (Bennett, 1987). The term is relative and therefore, the justice system is only relying to what is deemed to be a reasonable timeframe.

References

Bennett, G. (1987). Crimewarps: The Future of Crime in America. New York: Anchor Press.

Bratton, W.J. & Knobler, P. (1998). Turnaround: How America’s Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic. New York: Random House.

LaFree, G., Bursik, Sr., R.J, Short, J. & Taylor, R. B. (2000). The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change. Criminal Justice 2000, 1, 261-308.