Procedures in the justice system

Criminal Justice -- Procedure

Examine the five "Pragmatic Goals" of the criminal justice system. Once you have studied all five goals, create a post:

Stating and explaining any three of those five "Pragmatic Goals."

Giving your opinion as to which of the three (3) Pragmatic Goals that you selected you believe to be the most realistic and the most efficient "resource-wise."

Stating the reasons for your opinions.

There are 5 pragmatic goals of American criminal justice: Crime Prevention, Offender Diversion, Crime Deterrence, Criminal Control, and Criminal Rehabilitation. In my opinion, the 3 most important of those goals (in order) are: (1) Crime Prevention, (2) Offender Diversion, and (3) Crime Deterrence, largely because fully achieving any of those would automatically eliminate the necessity of all of the other remaining goals. In particular, effective crime prevention would address the most fundamental factors that result in criminal activity at their roots by preventing individuals from developing a criminal mindset in the first place. In principle, the most pragmatic approach to criminal justice is, precisely, to address the underlying factors that contribute to crime at the very earliest possible stage. The further along the line that crime is addressed, the less efficiently and effectively any approach can actually achieve the principal goal of reducing the impact of crime on society in general and on both victims and perpetrators more particularly.

2. One of the most important constitutional guarantees provided by the Bill of Rights is the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. What do you think was the original intent and purpose of the 4th Amendment? What interests do you believe it specifically protects? Why do you think that it was included in the Bill of Rights? Explain and justify your answer.

At the time preceding the American Revolutionary War, Colonial subjects had to endure having their homes forcibly entered without justification at the whim of British soldiers who would routinely simply ransack their homes, confiscate personal weapons, and even demand to have citizens give shelter and food to soldiers without compensation. Likewise, criminal accusations could lead to the arbitrary search for evidence without just cause. Undoubtedly, this experience was the motivation on the minds of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution when they wrote the Bill of Rights. In contemporary American society, the Fourth Amendment protects the fundamental right against having law enforcement or other government agents or entities simply demand entry into the homes of citizens and search for or seize anything they believe might be related to criminal activity. In principle, it is fundamentally related to the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of American criminal justice.

3. Generally, a search warrant is required before a lawful search may be conducted by law enforcement officers. However, throughout the years, the United States Supreme Court has recognized numerous exceptions to the search warrant requirement. In this activity, you are to name and explain, in detail, four (4) of the recognized exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Discuss with your peers the issue of whether the protection of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures has been seriously eroded by all these exceptions? Explain, in detail, why or why not?

(1) Search Incident to Lawful Arrest permits police to search persons who are lawfully arrested. This is a practical exception that does not seriously erode 4th Amendment protections, mainly because it does not interfere with the rights of citizens unless or until the other constitutional protections against unlawful arrest have been satisfied. In practical terms, lawfully arrested persons cannot be permitted to enter into the custody of the state without first ensuring that they are not in possession of weapons or other contraband.

(2) Search by Consent permits police to conduct searches of persons or property if they first obtain consent from subjects of those searches. Technically, consent obtained must be given freely and voluntarily and when that is the case, there is no violation of constitutional rights. However, in practice (i.e. "in the field"), consent may not always be properly obtained, such as where police ask in intimidating ways or by intimating that there might be negative consequences for refusing consent. In those cases, the particular facts (and not the concept of consent search) may violate the 4th Amendment.

(3) Emergency/Exigent Circumstance/Hot Pursuit is an exception based on the common sense of not requiring police to obtain a search warrant to follow a fleeing suspect into or onto private property or to respond to life-and-death emergencies. Since the police would be entitled to do so, if they happen to notice contraband or witness a crime on those premises, there is no violation of 4th Amendment rights when they seize that contraband or execute a lawful arrest for any crime they observe in the process of their lawful entry. (This exception is closely related to another, the Plain View exception.)