Presentation on theme: " Due process model- this model presumes that the defendant is or should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the courts are here to protect."— Presentation transcript:
Due process model- this model presumes that the defendant is or should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the courts are here to protect the suspect’s rights. The model also presumes that giving to much power to law enforcement officials will result in the loss of freedom and civil liberties for everyone. Crime control model- is almost the direct opposite of the due process model. This philosophy views crime as the breakdown of individual responsibility. This model also places a high value on repressing criminal activity, and feel that the person who is charged should be considered or presumed guilty.
Perhaps you have heard of the term CSI effect in a previous course or perhaps even in an article that you have read on the subject. Quite simply the CSI effect refers to persons that may be selected to sit on a jury that have unrealistic expectations of the prosecutions case based on the contents that they have may have seen in the past on one of the shows.
Two types of violence: ◦ Non targeted courthouse violence involves an individual who has no specific preexisting intention of engaging in violence but who, either during, at the conclusion of, or sometime shortly after the court proceeding become incensed and defiant at some procedure or outcome and acts out in the courtroom or public corridors. ◦ Targeted courthouse violence involves an individual who expressly intends to engage in courthouse violence.
Drug courts have proven to be a big success, with the only problem being that there are not enough drug courts operating to make a large enough impact for drug offenders. Mental health courts have also begun to spread as alternatives to traditional criminal court proceedings. Since the late 1990s, more than 175 have been established and dozens more are being planned.
Delays in processing cases is perhaps one of the oldest problems of the U.S. courts and it is not unusual to hear about cases that have languished on court dockets for years. Delay deprives defendants of the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial and lengthy pretrial incarceration pressures can cause a defendant to plead guilty. Although the speedy trial act of 1974 provided firm time limits of 30 days from the time of arrest to indictment and 70 days from indictment to trial it is not unusual for a court to go way beyond these limits
Individual calendar system- with this kind of system a case is assigned to a single judge who oversees all aspects from arrest to arraignment to pretrial motions and finally to trial. The primary advantage to this type of scheduling is one judge is responsible from beginning to end for the case, it reduces judge shopping by defense and prosecutors, and administrative responsibility for each case is fixed. Master calendar system- with this system the judges oversee (usually on a rotating basis) given stages of a case; preliminary hearings, arraignments, motions, bargaining, or trials. The judge is actually first assigned a case from a master pool of cases. Once finished with a phase of the trail it is returned to the central pool.
Arbitration is similar to a trial, the less formal. An arbitrator is selected were pointed to a case and parties are use usually represented by counsel. Mediation is considerably less formal and friendlier than arbitration. Parties agree to negotiate with the aid of an impartial person who facilitates the settlement negotiations.
In the mid 1990’s the national focus shifted from drugs to juvenile crime. This is primarily because during the 1980’s violent crime by young adults began to rise at an alarming rate. Since that time many states have began what is called a certification process for serious juvenile crimes. The problem with this is that many of the juveniles that are now incarcerated with other juvenile offenders can be locked up with adult prisoners after conviction.
Another controversial issue is the exclusionary rule, which was decided in the case of Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. For the person following the due process paradigm the illegal conduct by police cannot be ignored, and any court that admits tainted evidence tolerates the unconstitutional conduct that produced it. There are still arguments around the exclusionary rule today, and will probably remain for the foreseeable future.
Another hot button issue is that of plea bargaining. Some feel like it is an appropriate and needed tool to make the jobs of the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney easier. Others feel like it causes minimalization of the crimes that have been committed by the defendant as plea bargains usually result in less time being served by a defendant and charges to be lowered to a lesser crime in many of these instances. Civil libertarians do not like plea bargaining because they feel that the accused forfeits a long list of due process protections afforded under the Bill of Rights, the presumption of innocence, the governments burden of proof, the rights of one to face their accuser, to testify and present witnesses in ones own defense, to have an attorney, to appeal, etc.