Constitutional law

We have our presumption of innocence, right? A presumption is something that we take as true. We take it as a fact that the defendant is innocent, but it can be overcome through facts and evidence. That's the presumption; we start from a point where somebody is not guilty. Nobody can overcome that presumption without enough evidence. We say we have freedoms, and we talk a little bit about freedom of speech, but we also have societal needs like collective security, order, and fairness. Freedom of speech does not mean anyone can walk onto elementary school grounds and hold protests while kindergarteners are out on the playground. We have a need for security and safety. Unfortunately, this balance between freedoms and safety is necessary, even if it's not always perfect.

In the future of criminal justice or criminology, we talk a little bit about two major ideas: consensus theory and conflict theory. Consensus theory suggests that overall, society agrees on basic values and inherent definitions of right and wrong, similar to those outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In contrast, conflict theory, as proposed by Karl Marx, posits that laws and structure are artificially established to keep rich people rich and poor people poor. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle; corporations do provide jobs and opportunities, but the laws often benefit them over individuals.

In criminology and criminal justice, we focus on how laws are established and how our criminal justice system operates. We have two models: the crime control model, which tends to be more conservative and focuses on the repression of criminal conduct and efficiency, and the due process model, which emphasizes individual rights and the presumption of innocence. The crime control model may assert that if a few innocent people are jailed in order to apprehend a majority of guilty ones, that’s acceptable. Conversely, due process advocates would prefer to let guilty individuals go free rather than convict innocent ones.

Differences in approaches can be seen geographically and economically, rather than strictly along North-South lines. The distinction between regions is often more a matter of economic conditions rather than geographic position. For example, South Florida versus North Florida illustrates that different communities within the same state can have entirely different views and realities, politically and socially.

The legal system operates on the principle of checks and balances, with both the legislative and executive branches having limitations on each other's powers, which ensures that laws passed and judicial decisions made remain within constitutional bounds. When a law or executive action is deemed illegal, the court can strike it down, highlighting the importance of judicial review.

The process of legal reasoning and the establishment of statutory law must evolve to catch up to changes in society, especially in areas such as technology and crime. Child pornography laws and regulations around cyberstalking, for instance, took years to adapt to new societal norms, illustrating how slow the legal system can be to respond to contemporary issues.

Our system, founded on the principle of precedent, aims for some level of continuity and consistency to ensure that individuals in similar positions are treated similarly, although in reality, that often does not happen. Some people may receive public defenders while others can afford private representation, highlighting disparities in the system.

Ultimately, criminal law addresses public wrongs, with the victim being the state rather than an individual, while civil law deals with private wrongs. The threshold for evidence in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil cases operate on a lower threshold of preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial, there are only two potential verdicts: guilty or not guilty, while other nations may have additional classifications such as innocent.

When reviewing cases, legal opinions can diverge significantly based on the perspectives of dissenting justices, contributing to an evolving understanding of law and its impact on society. The establishment of judicial review helped to define the authority of the court system and has played a crucial role in shaping American law and constitutional interpretations over the years.