Criminal justice system

Criminal justice system

Introduction

The criminal justice system refers to the agencies implemented by a government and another process mainly for the jurisdiction of crimes. The system involves swaying sanctions or penalties to individuals violating laws. Criminal justice system operation is dependable on the jurisdiction employed in a certain state. Thus, there are differences in the kind of administrations imposed and crime management practiced in various agencies. However, there are two main types of crime systems involved in every state, that is, state and federal systems. State criminal systems deal with crimes that are committed within the boundaries of the state (Raghavan & Mishra,2017). On the other hand, federal criminal justices deal with federal property crimes, usually informing various countries. In each case, the criminal justice system is typically set to practice truth to every civilian. Thus, the systems aim at convicting, punishing, and helping the guilty to stop violating laws. Therefore, the criminal justice systems seek to limit the offending rate in society and protect innocent individuals.

The criminal justice system involves various components that ensure proper justice administration to all. The three major elements include courts, law enforcement, and corrections. The courts are led by judges whose role is to ensure laws are followed. Thus, they primarily serve as overseer of all court proceedings. Besides that, judges have other tasks, such as making decisions upon release of offenders (Mastrocinque & McDowall,2016). They also must oversee trials in the court and decide whether to accept or reject any pleas from offenders. Last, judges are responsible for sentencing the offenders and determine the appropriate sanctions for offenders. Law enforcement is another main component in the criminal justice system and is usually led by law enforcement officers. The law enforcement officers have the mandate to report the crimes occurring at their locations (Epikhin et al.,2018).thus their central role in the criminal justice system by investigating crimes to collect information and protect evidence. Also, law enforcers are responsible for arresting law offenders and may give testimony concerning offenders during court proceedings.

Corrections are the other component in the criminal justice system and usually run by correctional officers. The role correctional officers are generally to oversee the convicted offenders. Correctional officers supervise offenders at various levels, whether the offenders are under parole, probation, jail, or at their prisons. The officers in charge of corrections may sometimes engage in the preparation of reports concerning pre-sentencing (Prendergast et al.,2017). The announcements usually contain the offender’s background information and thus help the court in making sentences decisions. Besides that, correctional officers have a role in overseeing the daily activities of inmates at their custody and ensure they are safe. Also, they engage in the processes of releasing inmates by providing offender status to the court.

The Grim Sleeper case is an example representing the real criminal justice system the employs the above significant components of the criminal justice system.”Grim Sleeper” is a murder case for eleven deaths that occurred with a period of two decades. Lonnie Franklin Jr was the suspect accused of committing the crimes as per DNA results. (Patterson,2018). The name Grim Sleeper was given to Lonnie Franklin Jr due to his fourteen-year break from criminal cases. The suspect was arrested and convicted to have committed the murders of the eleven individuals upon his trial in the court. The jury overseeing the case ruled that the suspect was responsible for the verdict of the killings of the eleven individuals.

The investigative process of eleven murderers started after the LAPD recognized several deaths in south Los Angeles. According to the LAPD, the bodies were marked by the words “NHI,” which meant “no human involved.”Following the murders, a coalition was formed that identified the acts as serial killing and made the task to respond to the slaughter. The investigations were made effective by launching a media campaign and set an award for capturing the killer (Raghavan & Mishra,2017). According to studies conducted by Los Angeles Sheriffs, it was found that the murderers were committed by one person. The arrest of the Grim Sleeper was aided by DNA technologies that were used to examine the DNA of the suspected, thus uncovering various murder cases. The DNA was found to match with the detectives in the Lonnie Franklin.

The Los Angeles police used the interview to gather information about the suspect, and thus it helped to have enough evidence concerning the case. The familial searching employed in the interviewing process of Lonnie Franklin helped establish the connection between the suspect and the so-called Grim Sleeper scenes. Basing the DNA results, the law enforcers conducted an investigation based on the victim’s age and race. (Clark,Mays & Cochran,2017) The investigations of Grim Sleeper has conducted the approach of cold case investigation that deals with DNA typing. The investigations were led by Rock Harmon, who was in charge of the interviewing process. Through, the cold investigations by Rock police retrieved the suspect’s DNA that presented the evidence linking the suspect with the murder cases.

After the collection of evidence and the arrest of the suspect, the court started to hear the case. The judge dismissed the DNA expert who wanted to testify the Grim Sleeper case and held that the defendant was not qualified. Another defendant, Lawrence Sowers, was set to testify about DNA results that match to the offender. The defendant was aiming to protect the suspect under the fact that the DNA samples belonged to Chester Turner, a serial killer (van der Watt & van der Westhuizen,2017). However, the judge said the defendant did not meet the scientific methods for DNA analysis. Sowers’s testimony faced a challenge from Deputy District Attorney, who questioned the educations and findings based on the DNA results. Thus, Sower was forced to change his conclusion on DNA results that led the case to be postponed.

The murder case trial for Lonnie Franklin Jr s set after five years and accused of having committed the killings of eleven persons. The team was fueled by family members for Grim Sleeper case scene victims who demanded faster trial. The fact that the law held that the victims could require trials of the offender, victims’ family members were able to query for more rapid tests (Prendergast et al.,2017). Some individuals claimed that Franklin’s attorney was responsible for the delays experienced in the justice system. Furthermore, there were blames in the prosection where defense was blamed for those delays in trial

During the trial, there were more developments concerning the evidence. Judge Kathleen ruled that the DNA match results could be used in the court as evidence since it was legally obtained. The prosecutors thought of death penalty for the serial killer was better due to the murder cases.

Additionally, the investigators of the case also linked Lonnie Franklin to be responsible for other killings in Los Angeles (Raghavan & Mishra,2017). After the accusations of ten murder cases, the offender placed a no criminal penalty. However, the circumstance charges against him rendered him to the point of the death penalty, according to the California court. Following the trial, the superior court in the supreme, Lonnie Franklin, was sentenced to death for every victim.

Corrections

If given the opportunity as a judge in the case of Grim Sleeper, one would impose death sanction for the offender. The offender had committed many crimes in Los Angeles and hid from the area to avoid his arrest(Counsil,2017). Death sentence for the offender was appropriate because if allowed to live, he would threaten society. Furthermore, the death sentence was a form of compensation to the victims.

References

Clark, K. A., Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2017). Extreme violence and the invisibility of women who murder: the intersectionality of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity equals silence. Violence and Gender, 4(4), 117-120.

Counsil, T. (2017). The New Frontier: Genetic Analysis and the Concept of Rights Infringement. Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 17(1), 4.

Epikhin, A. Y., Zaytsev, O. A., Tasakov, S. V., Nechaeva, E. V., & Mukhametshin, T. R. (2018). The Correctional Process in Russian Penitentiary Institutions. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 4, 183-186.

Mastrocinque, J. M., & McDowall, D. (2016). Does recent victimization impact confidence in the criminal justice system?. Victims & Offenders, 11(3), 482-499.

Patterson, G. T. (2018). Implementing Evidence-Based Practices and Principles With Criminal Justice Populations. Clinical Interventions in Criminal Justice Settings: Evidence-Based Practice, 155.

Prendergast, M., Welsh, W. N., Stein, L., Lehman, W., Melnick, G., Warda, U., … & Duvall, J. (2017). Influence of organizational characteristics on success in implementing process improvement goals in correctional treatment settings. The journal of behavioral health services & research, 44(4), 625-646.

Raghavan, V., & Mishra, S. (2017). The Influence of Social Work within the Indian Criminal Justice System: A Critical Overview. Demystifying Criminal Justice Social Work in India, 1.

Van der Watt, M., & van der Westhuizen, A. (2017). (Re) Configuring the criminal justice response to human trafficking: a complex systems perspective. Police Practice and research, 18(3), 218-229.