U.S. Criminal Justice System Essay Example

America does not have the most advanced justice system in the world. Depending on whom you ask it's debatable if America even has a functioning justice system. The philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty" was meant to provide an equal justice system for those who may be wrongfully accused, yet we often see a guilty verdict from the media long before a suspect has gotten their day in court. How does the system aim to provide protection when the media, police, or the victim's family has deemed a person guilty before a jury of their peers? The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments were implemented to protect anyone who may be exposed to the system, however, that does not mean that it provides flawless protection. 

In the case of Mapp V. Ohio, we see police overstepping their bounds on the act of providing a false search warrant and illegally searching the Mapp home. The Mapps within their rights denied entry to search the home. For this reason, police decided to provide the Mapp family - mother and young daughter with a false search warrant. What's more, police got aggressive with Mapp upon their entry of the home. 

In this case, we see a group of police abusing their power to obtain evidence that is now no longer able to be upheld in court. Search warrants and their procedures are in place for a reason, police must obtain permission from a judge to achieve the search warrant. Most officers on the force do not have a four-year education in the law or criminal justice. In addition, they are not lawyers or judges who have studied law for some time before moving to the force. If the system allowed the police to make these decisions alone we would see an uptick of cases like Breonna Taylor one state over from Ohio, in Kentucky. 

In this case, police had a no-knock search warrant,  then allegedly went to the wrong location. Ultimately, Breonna's boyfriend thought they were being robbed he opened fire and police shot Breonna to death in her bed. Police then proceeded to arrest her boyfriend as she lay dying. It is increasingly important that we ensure law enforcement are following orders and are not making executive decisions that could put lives at risk. 

When we look into providing a fair system we are not looking into creating an equitable system the two aren't interchangeable. We can't know who's guilty and who is innocent without the right systems being put into place. We see this with the fifth amendment and two drastically different cases. I chose another popular one here for ease to the reader. Derek Chauvin the officer who killed George Floyd on camera in the Spring of 2020 plead the fifth instead of testifying at his trial. This prevented Chauvin from further incriminating himself despite the physical and video evidence. 

Whereas, we see in Ohio V. Reiner a babysitter who was called to testify who also leads the fifth. Here the evidence for guilt is not quite as strong for either party. The babysitter pleads the fifth to protect herself as being a possible scapegoat for the defense. Reasonable doubt is all that needs to be created for the defendant to be found guilty. In contrast to the video in the Chauvin case, this reasonable doubt in the babysitter's case was her presence with the children, during the window the attack occurred. Nonetheless, by presenting her side of the story the babysitter could become that reasonable doubt. While the science pointed to the father being the perpetrator the babysitter, in this case, did not want to incriminate herself in any way. 

To provide a fair trial bias must be removed from the trial and its investigations. Bias can come from anyone, anywhere at any time since we are humans it is not unlikely that we can inherently bring bias even when not intentional. What these amendments aim to do is protect those on trial from that bias. Whether it be racial, socio-economic, or personal bias. 

The ramifications of bias show heavily in the criminal justice system. There are drastic racial disparities in those convicted of crimes but also of those falsely accused of crimes. American society in itself was meant to uphold wealth, whiteness, intelligence, and socioeconomic status. This unfortunately does not stop within the criminal justice system if anything it worsens. How exactly does the 6th amendment protect those that fall outside of these categories? To know the law is to have a privilege many don't. For the longest time lawyers were straight, white, and men. Meaning they were the ones who not only invented the laws but were the ones who protected others when the law was broken. 

A person of color who was arrested or did not know the law could be coerced into a false confession, admitting information that may not necessarily proceed to their guilt, or unknowingly provide information that gives police enough circumstantial to make an arrest. The sixth amendment providing the right to counsel gave these groups a fair chance at a fair trial. When you have a defendant who is uneducated, possibly can't read or someone who is low-income and cannot afford an attorney the sixth amendment gives them some protection. This is not to say that all people are still provided equitable services through this avenue. It is inherently possible for attorneys to also exhibit bias. 

The right to counsel also provides the innocent and the guilty the right to a competent attorney allowing for appeals if it is deemed the attorney was biased or was not providing adequate legal aid for their client. This happens often in death row cases see Charles E. Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, et al., Petitioners. Mr. Strickland was sentenced to death in the original trial. Mr. Strickland was allowed to appeal on the basis the attorney failed in two areas and presented the defendant with counsel so unreliable it could change the basis of the trial. When we look at the history of the death penalty and the number of people who have been placed on death row who were then found to be innocent we can see that effective counsel is essential to providing a fair trial.

Even with these safeguards in place, the system is still abused every day. Innocent people are sentenced to die and guilty people are protected under the umbrella for the innocent. In a system designed to uphold fairness, the system has forgotten equity. Not all cases are created equal and not all people are exempt from bias no matter how hard they try. In a system that does not take preventative or often even post-active measures to prevent crime, we are forced to implement a system that protects the innocent from the pipeline that can so forcefully change the course of someone's history. 

The after-effects of the system on someone innocent or someone who has been/or is attempting to be rehabilitated can be disastrous. Children were removed from their parents and also children who were returned to their parents. The law and these amendments while vital do not take into consideration that there is much more to the criminal justice system than one defendant one victim. To reference again the Mapp V. Ohio case where we saw a mother and daughter who were legally within their rights to deny the search were then affected by the actions of the system or people like George Floyd or Breonna Taylor who committed no crime and were forced to leave behind grieving family and friends. 

While the amendments are crucial to protect the innocent they were implemented due to a system so broken it cannot keep up with the speed the world is changing. A country that is beginning to push the boundaries of what being a criminal means and what it will mean for future generations and a future criminal justice system.