Topic 6: Tough Choices in Law and Society: Crime Control v. Due Process

Black Stone’s ratio

“It is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer”

What 2 things does the law function to protect?

• Protect citizens from crime

• Protect accused from an unfair trial

Miranda v. Arizona

Court decided that (miranda) rights should be read to a suspect when they are arrested. if we want to make things fair, we need to inform them of their rights. In order to invoke miranda, you have to make an unequivocal statement that you are invoking those rights

Due process model

Places the primary value of the protection of citizens from possible abuses by the police and law enforcement

Characteristics of the due process model

• Assumes innocence of suspects

• Fairness over efficiency

• Its why states are responsible for burden of proof

• Actually no requirement for the defendant to present a defense because innocent until proven guilty

Crime control model

Seeks the punishment of lawbreakers, emphasizing the efficient detection and detention of suspects and prosecution of defendants so that society can be assured that criminal activity is being contained or reduced

Crim control model characteristics

• Repression of criminal conduct is the most important function

• Efficiency over fairness

• Attempt to protect society as a whole by detecting and moving people through the criminal justice process

• California’s 3 strikes law

3 strikes law

No matter what the 3rd crime is, the 3rd crime is punished harsher

Presumption of guilt

A prediction of the outcome, prediction of how the case will turn out

Presumption of innocence

Not a prediction of outcome, but rather a direction to official on how to proceed; speaks fairness into the procedure

Exclusionary rule

Designed to prevent the prosecution from introducing evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

Evidence is inadmissible when a defendant can demonstrate a causal connect between evidence and a prior rights violation. The court held that the Constitution prohibits not only the illegal seizure of evidence, but also all evidence resulting from it. Expanded exclusionary rule to all evidence discovered because of a rights violation

4th Amendment

The right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures

5th Amendment

No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Boyd v US

1st American judicial case to exclude evidence on grounds implicating the 4th amendment

Weeks v US

The defendant’s private correspondence was seized by police without a warrant; important because court relied excluively on 4th Amendment for its judgment, and emphasized not only the nature of the evidence but the manner in which it was seized

Amos v US

Court extended exclusionary rule beyond private papers; the court began focusing on the manner in which evidence was obtained rather than the nature of the evidence

Mapp v. Ohio

Supreme court explicitly ruled that the exclusionary rule also applied to the states’ prosecution of state crimes

Crime control position on exclusionary rule

People v DeFore; “should the criminal go free because the constable has blundered?”

Good faith clause

An exception mandating that evidence would not be excluded on the basis of rights violations in cases where law enforcement agents acted under a reasonable, good-faith belief that their actions were constitutional. Stands as one of the most significant retreats from the exclusionary rule as originally established

US v Williams

US court of appeals adopted a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule; The court justified this exception on the basis that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct; thus, excluding evidence when the police acted rightly is unneccesary

US v Leon et al

Held that evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant which was subsequently invalidated should not be barred from admission

Herring v US

May be said to represent a “sea change” in exclusionary rule jurisprudence, as it was the 1st case to make the mental state of the police into account. By holding that an officer’s actions must exceed mere negligence, Herring paved the way for further expansion of the good faith exception

Silverthorne Lumber v US

The court stated that illegally-obtained facts could still be admitted if knowledge of them was garnered from an independent source. The burden of proof lie within the prosecution, who must convince the court that the evidence is independent of the unlwful act

Nardone v US

Court established a second exception, attenuation

Attenuation

To make something weaker; the prosecution may argue that the connection between the initial violation and the derived evidence has become weak to the point of illegality

Wong v US

Court restated the attenuation exception, but their language has been used to support another exception, which applies where the government “undoubtedly would have lawfully discovered the ‘tainted’ evidence” through legal means

Adversarial system assumes 3 things

• Those who dispute affects should be responsible for making their arguments

• The biases of self-interest are necessary motivator in discovering the truth

• Conflict can take place within our system of law

Countries with adversarial system

US, Canada, UK

Countries with inquisitorial approach

France, Germany, Spain

Basics of adversarial system

• Each side presents its best evidence and an independent fact-finder decides the outcome

• Judges ensures due process and decides what evidence to admit

• Those involved construct the version of the truth

• Fundamental fairness is paramount - even if ‘unjust’ results occur occasionally

• Individual rights may trump truth

Basics of inquisitorial system

• The judge asks questions of the witnesses (who testify for the court) and makes a decision

• Judge constructs version of the truth

• Search for truth is paramount - even if unfair means are used occasionally

• Truth may override individual rights

Role of attorneys adversarial

• Attorney acts as extension of client, assist client as if it were their own case

• Active, responsible for producing evidence and questioning witnesses

• Prosecutors and defense attorneys are more partisan, competitors

Role of attorneys Inquisitorial

• Less active, less responsible for developing evidence

• Prosecutors and defense attorneys less partisan, mainly aid in the search for truth

Role of judges adversarial

• Passive

• Like umpires or referees; not responsible for ‘investigating’ truth

Role of judges inquisitorial

• Active

• Considered the ‘examining magistrate’; responsible for developing truth

Role of parties, witnesses adversarial

• More party control of disputes and less intervention

• More oral testimony

• Short questions and answers

  • Rather than them giving a long full story, witnesses only answer what they get asked

Role of parties, witnesses inquisitorial

• Less party control of disputes; more control by judge

• Tend to see more oral testimony of witnesses

• More written testimony

• Long narratives

Rules of evidence adversarial

• Stricter, more complex rules of evidence

• More exclusionary rules to control police, prosecutors, and judges

• Presented to laypersons/jury

Rules of evidence inquisitorial

• Fewer, more lax rules of evidence

• More discretion for judge and governmental decision makers

• Presented to jurists

Advantages of adversarial systems

• Both parties investigate the case; get ‘both sides of the truth’

• Motivates each party to put forth efforts to find truth and persuade the fact finder in a competitive trial

• Promotes more respect for individual rights

• Formal rules preserve an equal playing field; assume fair administration of justice

• Less removed from the average citizen, more accessible

• Trial by jury - better than the government paid agent

Advantages of inquisitorial systems

• One investigation of the case

• Brings investigation of cases before a detached magistrate - avoids overzealous detectives and prosecutors

• Promotes more respect for individual duty, responsibility and security of society as a whole

• Informal and less complicated process assures efficient administration of justice

• Panel of judges or government paid agents are less biased than the average citizen

Critiques of adversarial

• Truth suffers when rights become obstacles (e.g., to investigation, exclusion)

• Complex rules of evidence are difficult for laypersons to understand

• Investigative work is left to partisans

• The judge has too little power

• Trials become lengthy, process is slow, backlog develops

• Backlog discourages trials, huge pressure to plea bargain

• Excess law and unequal resources give more justice to wealthy

• Desire to assure fair means may lead to unjust ends

• Whole thing can get undermined

Critiques of inquisitorial

• Fairness suffers when duty to the court overrides individual rights and privacy

• Lack of rules of evidence give too much discretion to judges; they may be prone to biases

• Investigative work is left to government

• The judge has too much power

• Trials become ‘showcases’, process is too efficient to be fair

• Huge percentage found guilty

• Excess discretion and governmental control

• Desire to assure just end may deny fair means