Criminal Law And Supreme Court Essay

The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.

The main role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. In terms of a criminal justice process the court serves as the place in which a trial is heard and a sentence decided.

There are three significant issues concerning law enforcement, namely enacting the law, police discretion, and assessment of criminal behavior. Different entities create and enact laws that are specific for the societies those laws represent.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

The United Sates Supreme Court heard Schuette to determine whether an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Michigan, approved and enacted by its voters, was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which provides: ““No state shall make or enforce any law which shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. (U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, §1.)

In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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 persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

When it comes to the United States, (U.S), the majority of the American people love their seconded amendment rights. As stated in the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, the second amendment of the United States Constitution, for the most part, protects the U.S. citizens rights to “keep and bear arms” (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 167). That being said, each state in the U.S. will vary in their firearms laws. For instance, some states make it easier for their residence to purchase or use a firearm; other states may have stricter laws that require a more scrutinized screening process. To be more specific, most states vary in elements, such as the exceptions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, the waiting period on purchasing firearms; if someone needs a license to own or purchase a gun; if registration is required; and if a record of the firearm sales is sent to the local police. Other factors that will differ from state to state would include, if some firearms are permitted or not allowed to be sold or owned by a state, the concealed carry laws, hunter protection laws; range protection laws, and finally, not all states have firearm injury lawsuit preemption.

This paper points out the reasoning for why and how the Supreme Court and judicial system became what it is known for today. The Supreme Court was not always a perfect and well organized system. The court early beginnings started out after a decision at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was establish. This decision called for a national supreme court. With the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress made the US Supreme Court possible. One key person who had a role in developing the Supreme Court into a court of “judicial review” was the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall. Today the judicial system is broken down into three levels; local, state, and federal. And within these levels are different levels of the court system that handle civil and criminal cases. Each level has a different role to play in the court system but, they all serve the same purpose.

In order to keep a safe society, it is important to establish a nation with

president for legitimizing gay marriage would require some individual who shares that point of view. Regardless, there are a huge amount of issues to worry over, and it is practically hard to find the assurance that is a "faultless fit" on each one of them.

In regard to mythmaking, those who have a vast amount of power and control over the people are typically the ones responsible for fabricating such accounts in order to avoid certain areas of concern. The criminal justice system as a whole, embodies thousands of authoritative figures that citizens confide in. Myths that are fabricated within criminal justice play a vital part in coercing American society’s thoughts and perception, which by its nature, can serve as an advantage to some and destructive to others (Griffin, Woodward, & Sloan, 2016). According to Griffin, et al., individuals who perceive that these myths serve a purpose will seek to achieve ideals. In making this attempt, if at first they do not succeed, their ambition heightens and they try again. In contrary, others may take such myths as an attempt to guard an already biased, and unethical justice system (p. 126).

The due process and crime control models, both created by Stanford University law professor Herbert Packer, represents two opposing method of principles functioning within criminal justice system. Although the models describe the important facets of the politics and practice of criminal justice, both have been criticized since presented by Packer in 1964. Presently both models are acknowledged as imperfect standards to explain the politics and law of criminal justice. The crime control ideal represents traditional principles, whereas the due process belief reflects moderate values; therefore generating conflict evident throughout the years. This paper discusses models, crime control and due process, and how each affects the criminal

Criminal procedures are safeguards against the indiscriminate application of criminal laws and the wanton treatment of suspected criminals. Specifically, they are designed to enforce the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and defendants, beginning with initial police contact and continuing through arrest, investigation, trial, sentencing, and appeals. The main constitutional provisions regarding criminal procedure can be found in Amendments IV, V, VI, and XIV to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court for the first time began to extend the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to exercises of power by state and local governments.