Legal Issues in Crime Justice
- The constitutional amendment at issue, in this case, is the 4th Amendment. The Amendment states that any evidence obtained from illegal searches and unwarranted arrests is admissible in the state courts.
The Fourth U.S. Amendment The Constitution guarantees that “the freedom of individuals to be protected from arbitrary searches and confiscations is never violated in their citizens, properties, documents, and property, and no warrants are given, except by possible necessity, accompanied by oath or declaration, and in particular specifying a searching place and the people or items that have to be confiscated.”
- Mapp also took her case to the U.S Supreme Court, after losing her appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that information and evidence acquired in a search violating the Fourth Amendment in State courts are not admissible.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case because the evidence that the police found from the search was collected through force and without a lawful search warrant. Additionally, during Mapp’s trial in the Ohio Supreme Court, the police officers failed to present the paper that they supposedly used as a search warrant.
- Individual and society rights are more important because these liberties are laid down in the Charter to ensure that citizens have freedom of development and expression, dialogue, and direct contact with others. There are universal aspects of equality for citizens. They are also critical to a democratic society’s progress.
The Court’s rationale for breaching the fourth amendment establishes, first, an asymmetry between officers and common citizens. Citizens are not excused from ignoring the law, but the Court is diverging from the philosophy of criminal law by enabling the officer to retain such a shield, who is the individual himself whose responsibility is to use the law. Secondly, the finding and intrusion of reasonableness into a judgment based on an officer’s ignorance of the law or violation of the law are inconsistent with criminal law, which does not take account of justifications (Kranstuber,2017).
Third, criminal law allows an error in law defense only when the accused relied on an official interpretation of an official declaration of law, and the Court accepted the error of claiming a law when the officer relied merely on his interpretation of the law. Fourthly, the Court ignores the essential differences between the assertion by an officer of the error of the defense of the law to avoid exclusion and the assertion by the defendant to avoid criminal liability. Defendants are given the opportunity of an error in law defense because a criminal conviction would threaten their freedom, property, and reputation, and they would have further collateral consequences, including job losses (Kranstuber,2017).
- Entrapment happens when police officers order, intimidate, or otherwise inappropriately induce a suspect to commit a crime when he or she would otherwise not do whereas encouragement is the incitement of an individual to commit a crime.
- The two key approaches of entrapment are subjective entrapment and objective entrapment. The subjective entrapment investigates whether there was anything that happened before the individual committing the crime. In this case, the defendant has the burden of showing that if the Prosecution did not place pressure on the defendant to commit a crime, he would not have committed it. The objective entrapment approach focuses on the measures taken by the government to encourage or increase the risk of the individual committing a crime.
- The United States vs Russell case
The Court held that it had not been prohibited to take jurisdiction under a law of 4 July 1864 to the claimant’s property, but that there had been employed in the service of the United States in and use of the claimant’s property, to raise the implicit promise by the United States of reimbursing the claimant for the money spent by the state.
Jacobson vs the United States
The Court ruled that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutors failed to provide evidence that claimed Jacobson was likely to participate in an act of crime by buying child pornography without any intervention from the government. More doubt emerged in the situation that Jacobson may have been pressured by government officials to violate the law and punish him. The verdict of the Court of Appeal and the trial of Jacobson was reversed when the Court found the case to have failed (Farber,2020).
- The Fifth Amendment of the United States was at issue in this case. The fifth amendment to the Constitution prevents prosecutors from using the statements of a person in actual response to police custody interrogation as evidence during their proceedings in court unless it shows that the person has been informed of the right to consult a lawyer before and during interrogation as well as of the right to counter self – incrimination before questioning by the police and has understood the rights completely (Rauf & Riley, 2016).
In the fifth amendment, law enforcement officers are obliged to notify a suspect under custody that they can remain silent, and obtain a lawyer at no charge if required.
- In Miranda’s favor, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment reversing his conviction and remitting his case for retrial to Arizona. The Court found that the coercive nature of police custody prevents confession under the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer unless a suspect has been notified of his rights and has then waived them
- Individual constitutional and social rights must be balanced. If in some context, an individual indicates he needs to remain quiet, at some point before and during the questioning, the question must end. If the person says he wants counsel, the questioning should stop and begin when the attorney appears. The person must then have a right to speak to and engage in any direct interrogation of the attorney.
A.autonomy- Individual autonomy applies to a person’s sense of self-determination, to his or her own decisions, including the freedom to make those choices. Personal autonomy allows the individual to efficiently self-control — to track needs and values efficiently, to respond to the environment adaptively, and to initiate, coordinate and direct actions towards the fulfillment of requirements (Heilman,2016).
- Transparency-In the end, observing due process increases credibility and enforcement of the competition, strengthening the legitimacy of competition law and policy. Transparency involves making laws, policies, directives, procedures and practices, and agencies, and court rulings openly available.
- Procedural Justice and Regularity-Procedural justice requires equity in the processes taken after an administrative decision is made. Before the court makes a ruling procedural justice has to be allowed and followed. It’s a basic principle for the administration of justice, and a suspect may sue because procedural integrity was not complied with, and have his ruling reversed (Heilman,2016).
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that all people shall possess equal and fair protection of laws’ in the United States, which ensures that any suspect shall not be subject to prejudice. The state has a much greater responsibility to explain certain classifications in some situations where previous discriminatory actions have existed — such as discrimination based on ethnicity or gender.
E.Accuracy- The authenticity and attention to detail in the statement given by a suspect is defines as accuracy. On many occasions suspects, self incriminate themselves due to lies and inaccuracies in their responses during an interrogation. Before any questioning process begins the suspect should be informed on the importance of giving accurate confessions to avoid self-incriminating statements and also aid the due process in court.