Criminal Justice Opinion Essay Example

adult categories, the wrong issues are being addressed, making it difficult for media agencies to achieve the desired outcome. Poverty, proven to be a common denominator for criminal activity, needs to be addressed before deterrence can become a reality in impoverished communities. The campaigns carried out by media agencies typically focus on preventing drugs, prostitution (considered a source of income), and violence (enforced by the police - a symbol of the wealthy class). While these campaigns may have a positive impact on juveniles, there's a difference between classroom teachings and reality, and between children relying on others and adults taking responsibility for themselves.

The way in which the media reports on crime may lead to unintended misconceptions or undue pressure, damaging its credibility when offering advice on prevention or deterrence. However, police do benefit from media coverage to locate suspects when there are no identifying details provided, such as photos, sketches or videos. Therefore, it is fair to say that media can both deter and add to crime. For example, America's Most Wanted (AMW) would not disrupt crime reporting if another agency was responsible for capturing a fugitive.

Introducing a multitude of forums can increase awareness and serve as a deterrent. The knowledge that a larger audience will see it may discourage misconduct due to the lack of hiding places. The suppression of evidence, also known as exclusionary rules, can serve as a deterrent for police misconduct. By setting rules that acknowledge the violation of 4th amendment rights, law enforcement officials know that the evidence will be considered non-existent if presented. However, exceptions can prevent exclusionary measures such as inevitable discovery, which removes any potential taint from

evidence.

According to the law, if evidence is obtained through a violation of the Constitution or other means that makes it a primary target, such evidence cannot be a direct result of the government agency's illegal act. Nevertheless, if there is no direct connection between the violation and the evidence found, or it can be demonstrated that the evidence would still have been uncovered even without the violation, this is considered purging the taint. An example of this is seen in United States v. Yousif wherein Yousif argued that a checkpoint program in Missouri violated the fourth amendment by citing Indianapolis v.

The court of appeals determined that Mr. Yousif was stopped illegally based on the ruling in Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (Edmond). As a result, any evidence discovered during the improper stop should be voided due to the violation. The Missouri Highway Patrol and Phelps County Sheriffs Office placed signs on Interstate 44 alerting drivers of a drug checkpoint at a particular location, but they positioned themselves before the designated area. Consequently, they performed an unlawful search of Mr. Yousif's car, which led to the discovery of 100 Kilograms of Marijuana. However, courts have denied Mr. Yousif's claims.In his appeal, Yousif argued that the evidence would have been found during the random search anyway, as there were no other exits on the highway between the last notification and the checkpoint. The court determined that, despite the officers violating the fourth amendment, they had removed any taint as the evidence would have been found due to the inevitable discovery at the checkpoint. This ruling was made in the case of U.S v. with all and

their contents preserved.

According to Yousif in 2002, preventing the exclusionary rule from taking effect in a case should have minimal guidelines and maximum exceptions. This is because unconstitutional measures used by officers may release potentially dangerous suspects back into society, which is considered the biggest discouragement to law enforcement officials. Despite this, adjustments have been made in the legal system to allow lawful apprehension and conviction of violators without violating constitutional rights. In Ohio, discussions on death penalty methods have taken place between 2000-2005, resulting in lethal injection being the only method used since 2001. Furthermore, Cincinnati declared a moratorium in favor of banning all executions throughout Ohio in 2001, making it the 60th local government to do so.

In 2004, Ohio established an 18-member board to review all capital trials that occurred since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1981. The board examines various issues including race, economic status, and gender. Furthermore, they also investigate if the accused received adequate representation and fair resolution of cases while finding solutions for legal system delays. It is crucial to change laws and adopt improved methodologies to ensure that the death penalty remains a humane form of punishment. Ohio's decision to abandon the electric chair and opt for lethal injection shows this approach. However, in some cases, victims do not receive equal retribution. I believe that fluctuations in murder rates in death penalty states do not prove deterrence; verifiable instances demonstrate otherwise since criminals have nothing left to lose if sentenced to death. Moreover, it raises questions about what would serve as a deterrent against further criminal activities? In my opinion, justice lies more on atonement

for victims' families than being served by punishment through the death penalty.

This argument proposes that the justice system is met with an egotistical response from the families of victims, who use utilitarianism to justify society's acceptance of state-sanctioned killing instead of seeking true justice. Despite the inadequate practices offered by our justice system for victims and their families (apart from their value in obtaining convictions or adding drama to sentencing), I think that some satisfaction should be granted to those who have suffered tragic losses at the expense of the offender. As a result, I am in favor of capital punishment.

The aim of punishment is twofold: to provide retribution for the victim and to alter the mindset of the offender. In 1976, Von Hirsch introduced the Desert Theory, which takes into account the severity of a crime when determining sentencing. This theory establishes criteria for evaluating offenses, including prior convictions, in order to ensure equitable outcomes rather than identical punishments. Capital punishment should be reserved only for the most heinous offenders and used sparingly in accordance with these principles (Doing Justice, 1976). Failure to disclose relevant information erodes public confidence in a system that relies on impartiality from its governing authorities rather than simply fact-finding capabilities. Fair justice can only be achieved when all factors are considered. Public expectations are determined by popular vote, akin to a jury's decision-making process; therefore it is essential that voters have access to truthful information and make informed decisions based on facts rather than biases related to race, age or gender.

Paul Butler, a former US Attorney, believes that when minorities are involved in non-violent crimes, jury nullification should be

allowed. However, this opinion is problematic as it promotes prejudice - an idea that the black community has been fighting against for a long time. Furthermore, it contradicts the very justice system that Mr. Butler used to serve as an attorney.

In his suggestion, he advises Black jurors to use their race as a powerful tool when deciding non-violent crime cases. He cites drug offenses as an example of victimless crimes. Nevertheless, the issue with these types of crimes is that they are usually not enforced and considered a waste of time in court. This can result in more discrimination since law enforcement officials may try to charge wrongdoers with multiple offenses for punishment purposes. Furthermore, Mr. Butler's argument on drug possession could create a dangerous precedent because it encourages drug use, which has been scientifically proven to be harmful while disregarding the law.

Agreeing with the Supreme Court's decision, I hold that although convicted offenders may perceive the law to be inequitable in its sentencing, it remains unbiased towards race. Hence, responsibility for any injustice falls not on the law per se but rather on those responsible for enforcing it. Professor Leipold endorses nullification theory yet recognizes its downsides and thus advocates for preserving jury power to nullify verdicts while simultaneously taking into account potential adverse effects of incorrect legal decisions in other cases (Neubauer, 2001).

111) The opinion of Mr. Leipold seems to be accurate as the frequent occurrence of jury nullification would have a negative impact on the justice system. The issue of private prisons is closely related as prisons should not be privatized due to concerns surrounding motivations. Criticisms against privatization suggest that it

puts local communities at risk and may not actually save states money.

These companies, in order to increase profits while operating under strict financial constraints, have demonstrated a willingness to compromise public safety by taking shortcuts. For example, in Houston, a private company brought in violent sex offenders from Oregon and accommodated them in a minimum security facility without seeking approval from community leaders or informing local law enforcement. As a result, two of these offenders were able to escape, and because the law enforcement was not informed, there was a delay in the response.

Schlosser (2007) argues that entrusting public safety to big companies who prioritize profits and have no accountability to the public is not advisable. Opponents of privatization contend that private companies claiming to save funds on prison construction and maintenance do not necessarily save taxpayers money or improve conditions in existing prisons. A study by the University of Utah compared eight out-of-state studies, revealing a 50 percent probability of cost savings through privatization, a 25 percent likelihood of loss for the state, and a 25 percent chance of no difference being made. This suggests minimal cost benefits (Fattah, 2007, Para 4). Private firms often prioritize profits by cutting corners and hiring untrained workers at lower pay scales. The Maryland private prison audit conducted and controlled by AFSCME corrections officers revealed staffing shortages and stalled drug treatment programs negatively affecting inmate health (Schlosser, 2007).

According to Sentementes (2007, Para 1), private prisons lack sufficient public supervision, leading to decreased security levels due to budget cuts and a growing inmate population. Private companies in Texas and New Mexico initiated contracts that resulted in cost

overruns and left the state to handle the resulting chaos in their justice systems, which sometimes caused a hindrance in justice itself due to overcrowded correctional facilities, forcing high rates of parole and felony probations. Schlosser (2007) adds that the treatment of inmates raises concerns about their constitutional rights. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, legislative proposals were quickly introduced, leading to President Bush signing the USA-PATRIOT Act into law only six weeks later on October 26th, amending significant statutes with little debate or reports, including a 98-1 Senate vote (The U.).

The lack of background legislative history studies in the Patriot Act, published in 2007, has left out the necessary statutory clarification that is typically provided with new bills. Despite this, the act introduced many legislative changes that hugely increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States. However, it failed to establish a system of checks and balances that usually safeguards civil liberties when such legislation is presented. This has raised concerns about civil liberties, especially in light of terrorism bills from 2001. Some people view this as terrorists exploiting our system, which results in us having to rush to provide protections that may limit our freedoms worldwide. Alternatively, it may be seen as a move towards government tyranny.

It's undeniable that Americans have lost both freedoms and privacies, regardless of what measures have been implemented. When it comes to National Security, law enforcement strategies differ between typical police officers and their military counterparts. The latter, working domestically or abroad, operate under the guidance of intelligence and are thus intelligence-focused in their approach to policing. Conversely, civilian police

officers possess a different objective: upholding public order. Consequently, their abilities undoubtedly differ. When local law enforcement combines policing with intelligence work, one aspect is bound to suffer - be it community policing, prevention strategies, or intelligence operations. While some may contend that law enforcement already operates on an intelligence-based system, investigating crimes and gathering information for criminal prosecutions, agencies often find themselves understaffed when it comes to working on unsolved cases. Adding another division with limited jurisdiction serves only to hinder their efforts.

I am of the opinion that officers who have access to national security information can collaborate efficiently with government agencies to address problems within their limited domains. Although government agencies have no geographical constraints within any U.S. involvements, including foreign territories (e.g., the FBI investigated the U.S.S. Cole bombing in the Yemeni port of Aden), they still depend on local support.

It may be more efficient to have a combination of centralized and decentralized systems that involve local enforcement. The idea is to have a centralized command (Homeland Security) similar to the current system, but grant more autonomy to state and local authorities for dealing with national efforts as they arise. Local authorities are usually the first responders to any national situation, including 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, where FEMA was the centralized emergency system expected to respond despite the unavailability of local authorities. However, due to delays, New Orleans Police officers experienced disarray to the point where they lost respect within themselves and resorted to looting and stealing cars. The situation could have been different had locals not relied on centralized federal support. My Ohio Department of Public Safety-issued private investigation

license now includes the words "Division of Homeland Security," changing certain minimum requirements and firearm training that I possess.

My licenses, particularly those for firearm bearer endorsements, now mandate FBI background checks instead of the previous requirement of BCI ; I (Bureau of Criminal Investigation ; Identification) background checks. The new process also involves fingerprint and DNA checks. Despite having fixed requirements, enforcement is decentralized with the involvement of local authorities. The change is expected to enhance the abilities of local forces while ensuring that Homeland Security remains in control. Reference: American Library Association [NA] (2007) The U.

The following sources provide information about civil liberty concerns related to the US Patriot Act and terrorism bills:
- "US Patriot Act in the Library" retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotactlibrary.htm on February 19, 2008 by the American Library Association.
- "Civil Liberty Concerns in Terrorism Bills" retrieved from http://www.cdt.org in 2001 by the Center for Democracy and Technology.The source of information regarding legislative activities related to the death penalty in Ohio is the Death Penalty Information Center [NA]. The reference was retrieved on February 1, 2008 from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2193. This information is cited by Fattah, G.

(2007) A study has shown that privatizing prisons may not actually lead to cost savings. This information was retrieved on February 11th, 2008 from http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695211587,00.html. Another source, D. Neubauer's book "Debating Crime: Rhetoric and Reality" (2001), discusses issues surrounding crime and the criminal justice system in Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning Press Freedom.

(2006, March 31). Schlosser, E. Issues and Controversies On File. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from Issues and Controversies @ Facts.com database.

(2007) The Prison-Industrial Complex. Retrieved February 11, 2008 from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199812/prisons/5. Sentementes, G. (2007) AFSCME Privatization Update.

Retrieved February 11, 2008 from http://www.afscmeinfocenter.

The United States Court of Appeals [NA] criticized the inmate health system in a 2002 case involving Salwan Yousif. Information about this case can be found at http://caselaw.lp, retrieved on January 26, 2008.

On findlaw.com, a PDF document can be accessed at data2/circs/8th/012288p.pdf. The document, titled Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments, was written by A. Von Hirsch and published by Hill & Wang in New York in 1976.