Chapter 1-8: Key Concepts in the Criminal Justice System
Criminal Justice vs. Criminal Justice System
Distinction between criminal justice (the process) and the criminal justice system (the agencies working together).
Criminal justice focuses on law enforcement activities surrounding law enforcement and punishment under criminal law.
Criminal justice system includes policing, courts, and corrections; all three parts revolve around enforcing the law and administering punishment.
Law and justice are not identical: law is a set of rules; justice is how those rules are applied to achieve fairness. Justice fills the cracks in the rigid framework of law.
Core Components of the Criminal Justice System
Three parts of the system:
Law enforcement (cops)
Courts (prosecution, defense, judges, juries)
Corrections (incarceration, probation, parole)
All three parts work together to perform the process from investigation to punishment.
The system’s overall purpose is to enforce laws and administer punishments while protecting rights.
Law vs Justice: Substantive Rules vs Procedural Process
Procedural law is rigid and applies the same process to everyone (e.g., how arrests, searches, and trials are conducted).
Substance of what happens to individuals can vary based on the circumstances (e.g., a turkey sub analogy): you can have the same procedure but different outcomes for different people.
Substantive fairness depends on how the process is applied to individuals; this creates real justice.
Subway sandwich analogy: the same procedural framework yields different outcomes (different toppings, but the core order is the same).
The Subway Analogy and the Idea of the System
The process to put the law into action is the same for everyone, but the substance of outcomes can vary due to individual circumstances.
The criminal justice system is the integrated operation of policing, courts, and corrections; they must cooperate to execute the process.
Intro to the system sets up the components: policing, court system, and correctional phase.
Models of the System: Consensus vs Conflict
Consensus model: all parts (police, courts, corrections) consent to work together toward a common goal: justice and the enforcement of law.
Conflict model: each part pursues its own interests (arrests, prosecutions, sentences) with less regard for the others’ outcomes.
In practice, the system is more like a consensus model, where coordination and fairness across parts are essential to legitimacy and effectiveness.
The system’s legitimacy relies on ensuring arrests are proper, prosecutions fair, and sentences carried out properly.
Key Concepts and Procedural Safeguards
Presumption of Innocence: a person is innocent until proven guilty; rights should not be trampled in the name of enforcement.
Probable Cause: a reasonable belief about facts indicating that a person is involved in criminal activity.
Example: If a car is weaving, there may be a reasonable belief of impairment, especially if there is additional corroborating evidence (odor of alcohol, an empty bottle, etc.).
Probable cause requires a reasonable belief about the facts that it is more likely than not that a crime is occurring or has occurred.
In practice: multiple factors (totality of the circumstances) build probable cause.
Reasonable Belief: the belief must be more likely true than not based on the facts available; it supports a stop or investigation but does not by itself prove guilt.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: the standard of proof required to convict a defendant in court; morally certain according to the instructor.
Totality of the Circumstances: probability is based on a combination of factors, not a single cue.
The crime process is framed around constitutional protections to prevent arbitrary government power.
The Fourth Amendment: Search, Seizure, and Probable Cause
A stop (detention) and an arrest are seizures; the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
To stop or arrest someone, police generally need probable cause (not just moral certainty).
If there is probable cause, search and seizure may proceed; otherwise, it is unconstitutional.
The distinction between stopping (detention) and arrest (full seizure) matters for what rights apply and what procedures must be followed.
Miranda Rights and the Ernesto Miranda Case
Miranda rights are the warnings given to suspects to protect Fifth Amendment rights (against self-incrimination) and Sixth Amendment rights (counsel).
The key warnings:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be provided.
Fifth Amendment: protects against self-incrimination (right to remain silent).
Sixth Amendment: right to counsel, right to a speedy trial, right to confront witnesses; if you cannot afford counsel, one will be appointed.
Double Jeopardy: prohibits being tried again for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, with exceptions (e.g., if evidence was hidden intentionally by the defendant, sometimes called “dirty hands” concept).
Ernesto Miranda (1963): confessed after two hours of interrogation without being informed of rights; conviction initially upheld, but the Supreme Court reversed: the confession was inadmissible because Miranda rights were not properly communicated.
Outcome and significance:
Miranda warnings were established to ensure suspects are aware of their rights during custodial interrogation.
Reading rights is considered essential practice, even if not legally strictly required in every situation, to safeguard due process and avoid suppression of statements.
The takeaway: The court can overturn convictions if a confession was obtained without proper rights advisement; the integrity of the process is as important as the conviction itself.
Case Illustration: The Miranda Case and Its Aftermath
Ernesto Miranda kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old and confessed after two hours of interrogation without being informed of rights.
The conviction was challenged at multiple appellate levels; ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled the confession inadmissible because rights were not read.
The Court nonetheless allowed retrial with testimony from the rape victim, leading to a conviction on other evidence.
The ruling clarified that the police must inform individuals of their rights to remain silent and to counsel before custodial interrogation.
Practical Implications of Miranda and Constitutional Rights
Police practice: Always read Miranda rights when arresting or prompting custodial questioning to avoid suppression of statements.
Reading vs. giving rights: There is a difference between merely listing rights and the more careful practice of ensuring the suspect understands and appreciates them.
The legal process emphasizes procedural safeguards to prevent coercive or involuntary statements.
There are real-world tensions between swift policing and ensuring fair treatment and constitutional protections.
Self-Protection and Civil vs Criminal Contexts
In a criminal case, pleading the Fifth (remaining silent) protects against self-incrimination.
In a civil case, invoking the Fifth can be used against you and may be publicly noticed by the court; it is generally not advantageous to plead the Fifth in civil matters.
The instructor emphasizes using the Fifth in criminal cases and being cautious about statements that could be used against you in court.
The Three Parts Working Together: Practical Takeaways
The system’s effectiveness relies on coordination among:
Police ensuring probable cause and proper custodial procedures.
Prosecutors presenting a fair case with adequate proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Courts ensuring due process, fair trials, and proper sentencing.
The system should protect individual rights while achieving public safety goals; the balance is essential for legitimacy and trust.
Real-World Relevance and Ethical Considerations
The safeguards are designed to prevent wrongful punishment and preserve civil liberties.
Ethical implications include avoiding coercive interrogation, ensuring informed consent in taking statements, and treating suspects with fairness regardless of public pressure.
The system’s legitimacy depends on consistent adherence to constitutional rights and due process across all cases.
Quick Reference: Key Terms and Concepts
Criminal justice system: policing, courts, and corrections working together to enforce the law and administer punishment.
Criminal justice vs law: justice is the fair application of rigid law to individuals.
Probable cause: a reasonable belief about facts indicating criminal activity; supports stops/arrests.
Reasonable belief: belief that is sufficiently likely given the totality of the circumstances.
Beyond a reasonable doubt: standard for conviction; requires moral certainty.
Presumption of innocence: until proven guilty, the defendant is treated as not guilty.
Fourth Amendment: protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; establishes the need for probable cause for stops/arrests.
Miranda rights: rights to remain silent and to have counsel read to a suspect during custodial interrogation.
Fifth Amendment: protects against self-incrimination; right to remain silent.
Sixth Amendment: right to counsel; right to a speedy trial; right to confront witnesses.
Double jeopardy: cannot be tried again for the same offense after acquittal or conviction, with limited exceptions.
Consensus model: the system’s parts cooperate toward justice.
Conflict model: parts pursue individual interests; less coordination.
Totality of the circumstances: multiple factors considered together to determine probable cause.
Dirty hands: a concept noting that improper conduct by a defendant can affect a case, such as hiding evidence to manipulate outcomes.
Summary Takeaway
The criminal justice system comprises three interrelated parts (police, courts, corrections) that must work together to enforce laws fairly and protect constitutional rights.
Core principles include presumption of innocence, probable cause, and standards of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Miranda rights emerged from Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona (1963) to protect against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation and to safeguard due process.
The system operates under two conceptual models (consensus vs conflict), with a practical preference for a coordinated, rights-respecting approach to uphold justice and public safety.
Real-world application requires careful, ethical practice: reading rights, securing evidence properly, and prioritizing the fair treatment of all individuals within the framework of due process.