criminal justice system
In the criminal justice system, the court decides on matters between the complaints and the defendant, according to the law. Although the court is the arbiter charged with the responsibility of serving justice for all, criminals and lawyers use the existing loopholes to defeat justice. Judges and magistrates in the judicial systems play an essential role in sentencing criminals. In the entire criminal justice system, the courts determine whether offenders respect the law, victims get justice, and reintegrate imprisoned offenders into the society as law-abiding upon completing their sentence. While the courts have been charging several people who commit crimes, only a small percentage are incarcerated. The remaining group of offenders escapes trail because of bureaucracies and technicalities in the court processes.
The courts enforce the law that safeguards the rights of the accused and the victim. The assertion that the courts have given criminals too many rights is false because charging a criminal follows a due process. According to the American Government (2019), criminals have civil liberties. In the case of The People vs. O.J. Simpson, the verdict of the jury reflects the rights that Americans enjoy under the judicial system. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments provide for the constitutional ground on which criminals enjoy rights (American Government, 2018). The Supreme Court interprets the 4th Amendment in a manner that prohibits any institution from accusing a person of serious crimes without due process. It also prohibits instances of double jeopardy (American Government, 2018). The courts, prosecution, and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system follow the principle of due process. Therefore, they apply the law equally to everybody right from the arrest to the prosecution, and when the jury makes a verdict.
The courts should be more concerned with the law. There, it protects the rights of the victims and the offenders as the constitution prescribes. Therefore, criminal offenders and victims have rights throughout every stage of the criminal justice system. The courts uphold these rights, as illustrated in Miranda v. Arizona. FindLaw (2019) indicates that the defendant’s rights, such as the right to remain silent and search and seizure are critical to the offender. During the trial, the defendant still enjoys the necessary rights of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In addition, the offender has the rights to face their accusers and refuse to be prosecuted more than once for the same offense. The victims also have rights enshrined in the constitution that help them in obtaining justice.
The evidence found in search and seizure should lead to arresting the accused. Under the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, illegally seized evidence has no use in the court of law. The constitution protects the rights of the accused to privacy and prohibits false incrimination (FindLaw, 2019). Therefore, Congress enacted legislation that prohibit law enforcement officers from interfering with the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment. Courts should be interested in assuring fair treatment to suspects, the accused, and offenders in a manner that exceeds the standards in Miranda Rules (Marcus and Markman 1998). The courts should decline from admitting falsified evidence because it goes against the integrity of the criminal justice system. The practical effect is to ensure that the court, the prosecution, and law enforcers serve justice to all parties right from the arrest, investigation, and the delivery of justice.