Criminal investigation methods and procedures
When it comes to criminal investigation issues, there are many considerations to address. Who will actually conduct the investigation is very important, as are the legal issues that surround it. In order to avoid having inadmissible evidence and information, everything must be conducted properly. Released information is also significant, because giving away too much information can harm the investigation right from the beginning.
Prosecutors' responsibilities in initiating criminal charges and grand jury proceedings
The job of the prosecutor is an important one within the American legal system. He represents the people, victims, the states, and the government. Its the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove the defendant is guilty. One of the first things a prosecutor does, before going to trial, is convene a grand jury. A grand jury judges the validity of the evidence and charges. These grand juries while important are unfair to the defendant as the prosecutor is the only legal counsel able to present evidence.
Criminal procedure principles and practice
Thus, the Constitution, while a growing document, should have relevance that is neither time nor location based. The equal protection clause can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. It simply states that, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"
Criminological perspectives on racism throughout history
Racism has always been a defining feature of the American criminal justice system, including racial profiling, disparities in arrests convictions and sentencing between minorities and whites, and in the use of the death penalty. Racial profiling against blacks, immigrants and minorities has always existed in the American criminal justice system, as has the belief that minorities in general and blacks in particular are always more likely to commit crimes. American society and its legal system were founded on white supremacy going back to the colonial period, and critical race criminology would always consider these historical factors as well as the legal means to counter them.
Officer accountability in law enforcement and governance
Officer Accountability
An officer's proven dishonesty creates a significant problem for the police department.
First, ignoring/covering up the officer's misconduct is out of the question, not because the police department is a bunch of Boy Scouts, but because the possible discovery of ignoring/covering up that dishonesty would be devastating to credibility, not only of the initially dishonest person, but also of the superior or department that ignores or covers up the dishonesty. Secondly, this dishonest police officer jeopardizes every criminal case in which he has testified or will testify. Once a police officer has been officially found to have committed a dishonest act, his/her credibility would be questioned in every case, including past cases in which he/she has testified. In addition, the prosecution will have the duty to disclose that dishonesty to every criminal defendants' attorneys involved in any future case that may require this officer's testimony. Consequently, this officer's dishonesty could conceivably affect the outcome of every single criminal case in which he has testified in the past or will testify in the future. The head of the police department must minimize the damage by removing this officer from the field. Third, this officer has served the department for 15 years and has two "infractions" on his employment record. Under those circumstances, his experience and possible usefulness to the police department should still be taken into account. There are several administrative roles within a police department that do not require an officer to be "in the field" or to testify in court; therefore, this officer could still ably serve in the Department in a curtailed role. Consequently, the officer should be advised that he is removed from work "in the field" and that there will be no negotiation on that point. That removal constitutes his "punishment" for his recently discovered dishonesty. However, the officer will also be offered the opportunity to continue in the Department in an administrative role that never requires his testimony in court. Given the facts of this case, this appears to be a possible fair solution for all concerned.?