Online Criminal Justice Degree Guide

Academic Readings for Controversies in Criminal Justice Law

Controversy in criminal justice is as ubiquitous as it is in any other facet of the political system. Criminal law, however, is the only field in which false confessions, overly lenient sentences, wrongful searches, and racial profiling can ultimately lead to a wrongful execution. Criminal law is continuously changing and while the Constitution remains static, new Supreme Court motions and rulings have come to apply new rights to the individual over time.

It is often argued that the Supreme Court’s duty is to apply the law, not to make it, but one cannot deny that criminal law has been widely affected by landmark Supreme Court decisions on hot-button issues. Despite this aggressive effort to ensure fair rights for citizens, there are still issues of contention in the criminal justice system. The following provides explanations of today’s mostly highly debated issues in the criminal law index.

1: INTERROGATION

It should come as no surprise that in trials, juries believe confessions. They�re remarkably convincing. But there is also remarkably convincing evidence that shows how savvy detectives can make vulnerable suspects confess to just about anything given the right amount of coercion. With a combination of leniency, threats, hints of promises, and insinuations, police interrogation is indisputably a mind-game that’s rigged to take advantage of the suspect. The process inevitably opens itself up to false confessions. Researchers estimate between 65 and 300 false confessions occur per year in the United States. Considering the potential consequences of such a confession (like death), this is a startling statistic.

A lot of the techniques used to cause discomfort, confusion, and insecurity in the brainwashing process are similar to those used in interrogation, like invading personal space, using contrasting alternatives, painting confession as a means to escape the situation, and the most intriguing of all, not allowing the suspect to speak. If suspects are read their right to remain silent, there is little more the government can do to monitor interrogations besides requiring them to be videotaped.

This all leads to the question at hand: can police interrogation ever be a fair process‌ Is interrogation simply a necessary part of the system‌.  How can a system designed to manipulate a suspect into confessing be non-coercive‌?

  • Miranda v. Arizona – The Supreme Court rules on whether police can interrogate suspects without notifying them of their right to silence and right to an attorney
  • J.D.B. v. North Carolina – The Supreme Court rules on whether police can interrogate minors without notifying them of their right to silence and right to an attorney
  • The Psychology of False Confessions – Factors that influence innocent suspects to give self-incriminating, false statements during interrogation
  • Tortured Logic – The legality of United States interrogation practices in the War on Terror


2: PLEA BARGAINS

Plea bargains emerged in the 1800s in an effort to speed up court proceedings. For a person to “plea bargain” means that they plead guilty to a lesser crime earlier in the proceedings in order to obtain a nicer sentence and to lessen the time of a trial. While the UK has an official plea-bargaining system set up, the U.S. does not; different States and jurisdictions have different rules regarding their usage.

According to Timothy Lynch in his article “The Case Against Plea Bargaining“, 90% of criminal cases in America are never tried before a jury because of a system that allows plea bargains. It is argued that plea bargains are the “primary technique used by the government to bypass the institutional safeguards in trial” (Lynch). As a result of threats by prosecutors who hint at harsher punishments, there are innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit. The plea bargain allows innocent people (with no option but to plead guilty) to avoid a trial in which the sentence could be much worse. Advocates of plea bargains maintain that they mitigate the pressure an overwhelming number of court cases placed on the criminal justice system everyday. Plea bargains, proponents believe, are indispensable constituents of the system that promote sustainability and efficacy. But are timeliness and easy convincing enough reason to justify the fact that innocent people plead guilty to avoid worse sentences?

Academic readings on plea bargains:

  • Bordenkircher v. Hayes – The Supreme Court rules on whether state prosecutors are prohibited from re-indicting the accused on a more serious charge.
  • Plea Bargaining as Coercion – Trial Penalty and Plea Bargaining Reform
  • The Value of Plea Bargaining – From the Oklahoma Law Review, a defense of plea bargains
  • The Unnecessary Evil of Plea Bargaining – A Constitutional conditions problem and a not-so-least restrictive alternative from the Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice
  • Asheville Murder - Jailed men receive innocence hearing after 11 years in jail as a result of pleading guilty to a murder they did not commit in order to avoid the death penalty


3: SEARCH AND SEIZURE

The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides protection from search and seizure, stating: “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”

Since it is unreasonable searches and seizures that are prohibited, the legality of a search is determined by ab standard of reasonable logic, framed by the probable cause requirement that demands an officer must have a very good reason to conduct a search without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment is generally interpreted to require that a warrant must be
obtained for a search whenever it is practicable to do so.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a suspect must have “reasonable expectation of privacy” in order to press charges for unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, this means it is up to the courts as to whether a suspect with a ten-foot tall fence has a reasonable expectation that people would not what was going on behind it. Is it unreasonable for the suspect to expect police to fly above his house in public airspace and take pictures of his or her back yard‌. Does the protection against unreasonable searches ultimately favor a suspect’s privacy rights‌?
Academic readings on privacy:

4: RACE

Racial influence in the criminal justice system is a real issue, but it�s often argued as one that should no longer be important. In a famous quote by Chief Justice Roberts in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1,  “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” And while in theory it seems self explanatory and sound, it is a sticky subject.  When asking for a description of an assailant or thief, police nearly always ask about skin color along with height, weight, clothing, scars, and tattoos because the information helps them identify and apprehend the perpetrator.

Problems arise, however, when generalizations about race are abused to harass innocent people. The ultimate question in the profiling controversy is whether the disproportionate involvement of minority populations with law enforcement reflects police racism or the consequences of disproportionate minority crime. Surveying the race of a victim is prudent for a defense to accuse a suspect of bigoted intentions, and whether or not racist motives are grounds to increase a sentence remains unclear. When can you punish people for acting on race‌?

Additional Resources:

2011 OnlineCriminalJusticeDegree | More