Criminal Law and the Criminal Justice System

¶ … law that you believe has most strongly influenced modern criminal law. Explain the theory and the basis for your selection. From there, explain why an understanding of statutory law is necessary in a criminal justice context. Select one statute on any criminal law. Use that statute as your point of reference to support your positions and conclusions. Conclude by selecting one case involving a criminal procedural issue and another case involving a substantive criminal law issue. Summarize your two selected cases and explain why an understanding of statutory and case law is important to a criminal justice professional.

The classical theory of law believes that an individual is in charge of their own actions and voluntarily chosen to therefore break the law. Behavior is rational and since this is the case, the law acts in kind, also in a rational way. Criminal law, as propounded by Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishments," postulated that punishment should be as rational as the act and correspondent in kind. It was this perspective -- called classical theory -- that actually required not just correctional facilities but also the entire policing and legal correctional system to ensure that the criminal had rally acted solicitously in perpetrating his act (Schlatz, online)

An understanding of statutory law is necessary when dealing with criminal law since the entire criminal law system -- in fact, the basis for convicting an individual and sentencing him -- is based on the premise that the law has said so. Before being penalized (before correctional system is applied to him), the panel of legal justice and policies judges him. If found guilty (i.e. If found that he voluntarily chose to offend), the person is then punished.

The understanding of statutory law's involvement with criminal law can also explain why many people are frustrated at the shortfalls and lapses in places where statuary law seems to be adept, or fall short, in meeting the criminal law circumstances.

This frustration can be illustrated in the set of systems that are called indeterminate sentencing. There are three sentencing systems: those featuring determinate-sentencing statutes; those using indeterminate-sentencing statutes; and those applying sentencing guidelines. Determinate sentencing structures are those that require a fixed period of confinement. Indeterminate sentencing on the other hand relies on the discretion of the judge and it is this structure that provokes public frustration since there have been inconsistencies in sentencing with those committing the same crime often receiving disparate sentences. Sentencing disparities are usually based on race, gender, region, or socioeconomic status. The third kind is mandatory sentencing such as for drugs or drunk driving where all 50 states carry the same mandatory sentencing. The statute behind indeterminate laws is 'rehabilitation' -- that the offender can now be released to make good on his acts. The problem is, however, that practice of this statutory law depends on the bias and decision-making characteristics of the particular judge (on his discretion) and this varies from case to case. (Cliff's Notes)

In order to be convicted, the law holds that an individual has to have a "rational and factual understanding" of the nature of the proceedings, and must be able to competently assist his lawyer. Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case which added to this precedent where the Court rules that the standard for competency to stand trial was not linked to the standard for competency to represent oneself.

Edwards suffers from schizophrenia and tried to steal a pair of shoes from a store. In defending himself he shot and wounded an innocent bystander. In 2000, he was deemed not competent to stand trial and was hospitalized. In 2002, his lawyers asked for another competency evaluation and in June 2005, Edwards finally stood trial. He asked for the right to represent himself, and this originally refused, was ultimately agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court dividing between issue of competency to stand trial and issue of competency to represent oneself. (Indiana v. Edwards | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College )

Procedural laws deal with the way that criminal laws (or laws in general) are carried out. Substantive laws deal with discussion of the substance of the law, such as in criminal law, discussion of how well rules deter, rehabilitate, or exact retribution.

A case involving a substantive criminal law issue is that of the 1970s case where they arrested Soliah who belonged to the Symbionese Liberation Army, a radical San Francisco group that kidnapped Patricia Hearst and tried to kill government officials. The case involves the controversial Alford pleas issues where defendants are allowed to plead guilty while simultaneously protesting their innocence

Soliah had changed her name to Sara Jane Olson, and her court procedure turned out to messy with some judges in some states allowing the nolo contendere plea (which is where individual may refuse to admit guilt but accept punishment as if guilty). And judges in other states allowing her to use the Alford system. In each case, the outcome was different and judges were confused finally prescribing her psychologically incompetent to stand trial. It was only then that Soliah admitted and announced that she was sorry for hurting others.