The accused would ultimately be clueless and left in the dark throughout the criminal justice process, by not knowing the charges filed against him and why. Witnesses testifying against the defense tend to feel pressured into telling the truth when confronted by the defendant in court (Annenberg, n.d.). Therefore, without this right in place, witnesses of the prosecution may be more subjected into lying to make their case, although they are under oath. Also, the accused may not be allowed to fully tell their side to the story or argue their cases to its fullest potential should they not have this right. In addition, most people living in the United States are not fully aware of their rights or knowledgeable of the criminal justice system and, for this reason, cannot effectively represent themselves in court.
The addition of hate crime charges does not potentially harm anyone else other than the criminal themselves, but the oppositions of hate crime legislation could have evolved out of jealousy for this supposed unequal advantages. The intimidation of particular groups has become widely known as a wrongful act, yet people surprisingly do not accept victims seeking justice to find peace within themselves by winning their court case. Adding an extra penalty to criminals as they go through the process in court would seem like a benign action to take, yet the idea of providing this advantage does not settle too comfortably in the heads of other non-minority victims. Ordinary criminal laws would seem to meet requirements for victims, yet targets of crimes never cease to get the most out of the loose interpretations of law.
Additionally, he was not informed that he had the right to an attorney. After being interrogated for a while, Doe gave in to the police and confessed he had some connections to the person who committed the crime. John Doe’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated because he was not read his Miranda rights and Doe was led to self-incriminating actions. When the police neglected to
Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times. The stop and frisk policy is a policy in which law enforcement officers stop and asks questions and frisk people they feel are suspect, and I feel that it is wrong because it targets too many innocent people and takes the focus off real criminals. They do this even if the person has done nothing wrong.... ... middle of paper ... ... mistaken for someone else. I have seen innocent people go to jail for a crime they did not commit because of wrongful accusations.
Since it so challenging to correctly define, the three broad categories of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance ... ... middle of paper ... ...e punishments. An article in the Criminal Justice Review states that “controlling police corruption is difficult, if not impossible (Vito 153).” This is because typically the only people who know that these crimes are going on are the other police officers within a department. Police officers generally fail to report their colleagues and therefore much of this deviance goes unnoticed. Works Cited O'Connor, T.R. "Police Deviance and Ethics."
A simple greedy thought can hurt many people. “The illusion of simplicity crumbles when one considers the many contexts in which this “effects” scenario can arise. (Erbsen, 2015 pg.389 )” They can not only hurt themselves and the state but it can also hurt the reputation of the police as well. “Honest officers are silenced by their fear of ``ratting ' ' on another cop no matter how grave the crime. Supervisors often fear the impact of a corruption scandal on their careers more than corruption itself.
They had an alibi witness, a gas receipt, a ticket on the day of the murder. A police officer who would not come unless the judge subpoena him and the judge of course refused and would not pay the $650 to summon him. There were also two jailhouse snitches who lied about their testimony. The police misconduct was used in how they charged these individuals originally and how they have been accused initially with robbery, which later turned into murder. The police created the story and intimidated an eye witness who refused to testify and threatened to charge her with the murder if she refused.
The answer all depends on the opinion of the person who is being asking. Many supporters say that the law is keeping sexually violent predators from striking again, but many critics say that the law is unethical and breaks many amendments. This is another question proposed when the topic of Megan’s Law is brought up, is it breaking any of the amendments or is it necessary for community members to know whether a sex crime offender is living is in their neighborhood? The judge who was deciding this case ruled in favor of the critics, that Megan’s Law was in violation of the Constitution. But then finally President Bill Clinton stepped in and created a total package called the Jacob Wetterling Act.
Although proponents of hate crimes have some valid points I still remain in disagreement because when it comes to hate crimes their seems to be more questions then answers and there also seems to be a lot of uncertainty within the law itself. Hate crime laws should no longer exist in are justice system because every violent crime involves an element of hate and it is impossible to prove a person’s motive or hate in the court of law.
Miranda VS Arizona In 1966, American police procedure was changed by what is known today as the Miranda Rights. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a twenty three year old Hispanic American with an eighth grade education was arrested for kidnap and rape. (Paddock) He was identified by the victim of the crime in a police lineup. After he was identified, he was taken into police interrogation for two hours. When he was arrested, he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself.