Comparing Constitutional & Statutory Law: Similarities & Differences - Essay Sample

Introduction

The primary sources of fundamental rights and principles are the constitution of the United States as well as the Statues. The two documents have apparent similarities as well as differences. For instance, they are both clear on the formal title of the nation, which is the United States of America (Hagan, 2000). However, statutory law-law derived from the status can be applied upon interpretation by any court within the United States jurisdiction. Constitutional law, on the other hand, is strictly supposed to be interpreted and used by the appellate courts. Unlike the statutory regulations that can easily be changed by Congress and the House of Representatives, the process of amending constitutional law is quite more challenging and elaborate. Statues merely rely on the constitution. Therefore any statutory law that does not conform to the constitution is null and void (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). It is, therefore, correct to say the United States constitution is the supreme source of various rights and principles of the nation.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Steps of the Criminal Justice Process

The rule of law requires that all citizens abide by state laws and regulations. However, in the case where individuals fail to adhere to such requirements as laid down in the constitutions, they are supposed to be subjected to some punishment. Criminal justice is that process that involves a series of steps that are taken by the law implementers (majorly the police) to discipline the lawbreakers. The entire process starts with a focused criminal investigation and ends with the release of a convicted offender from correctional centers, which are mostly jails in the United States. There exist various sources of rules that govern the criminal justice process. They include the United States constitution, the bill of rights and U.S. codes, state codes, criminal proceedings in courts, previous court rulings and, federal rules of criminal procedure. There are four significant steps in criminal justice in the United States. The steps are discussed in the details in the steps below:

Step one: Investigation of a committed crime - Police carry out intensive investigations once a crime has been committed and brought to their attention by members of the public or private investigators. The purpose of this step is to identify the key suspects of a particular crime. This stage also helps the investigators to gather enough evidence to support the next level, which involves the arrest of the suspect (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). The critical requirement for this stage is known as the probable cause, which is clear evidence that a particular crime was indeed carried out in a specific place, which is known as a crime scene.

Step two; Suspect arrest- after a probable cause has been identified, the police arrest the suspects of a particular crime. Arrest involves taking of the suspect into police custody as they wait to be arraigned in court to have charges pressed against them for probable crimes.

Step three: Prosecution- Once in the court, the suspects are prosecuted by the district attorneys. When carrying such a prosecution, various factors are taken into consideration. They include the strength of the evidence presented before the court. Other factors that are usually taken into account include the seriousness of the offense the suspects have committed.

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

Probable cause refers to presumptions that there exists an extent of reasonable ground that a suspect had indeed committed a particular crime. Such grounds are then used to justify such steps as a search or opting for charges. It is important to note that search warrants only allow the police to detain the suspects, but they additionally require a probable cause for them to handcuff and conduct searches on their premises lawfully. Reasonable suspicion, on the other hand, is standard built up by the "Supreme Court in a 1968" case (Hagan, 2000). It allows the police to arrest and detain a suspect if they are convinced that they could be taking part in certain criminal dealings. Reasonable suspicion, therefore, empowers the police to use their past experiences and encounters and make rational decisions concerning a given crime.

There is a slight difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Probable cause can be interpreted to mean there is strong evidence that an individual has committed a particular crime. Reasonable suspicion leaves a room for a broader interpretation (Eisenstein& Jacob, 1977). Therefore, reasonable doubt requires an intensive investigation before arriving at any conclusion. Both Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are, however, very vital in criminal justice. This is because they give the police a room to conduct informed investigations and identify the real suspects of a particular crime

Amendment Related to Arrest, Search, and Seizures

This was the fourth amendment in the U.S. constitution. The bill sought to protect people from unnecessary police searches, interference of personal spaces, unlawful arrests as well as seizures of private properties. This amendment, therefore, sought to protect people from intrusions by the government (Hagan, 2000). It also intended to safeguard their rights of privacy. For an individual to be able to claim a violation of the Fourth Amendment as the critical basis of objecting specific evidence, the requirements by the courts were quite bureaucratic, and thus many people were denied this right by the law.

However, following the amendment, the Supreme Court has abandonment many of the past requirements and regulations. Instead, the claimant only needs to demonstrate that any of the critical rights highlighted in this amendment have been violated (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). Therefore according to this amendment, a police officer may not enter personal premises and conduct a search, seizure, or arrest unless they have a search warrant, an arrest warrant, or a belief that can amount to probable cause that an individual has committed a crime. The amendment also stipulates that if police officers violate these rights, the person concerned will be protected by this amendment, and such evidence will be kept out of the case.

Exceptions of the Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary rule hinders the police or other state agencies from using evidence that has been collected and analyzed without putting into consideration the rights of the defendant from been used in the court of law to press charges against the defendant. This rule, therefore, ensures that the fundamental rights, as well as privileges of the charged, are protected. There exist various exceptions for the exclusionary rule which include:

Unavoidable Discovery Rule: - under this exception, the court allows the prosecution to use "unlawfully acquired information" against the defendant it the trial proves that such evidence was discovered "accidentally," or it could have been discovered anyway even if the legitimate channels were followed (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). The prosecution must also attest to the court that they were pursuing lawful investigations when they came across such evidence.

Autonomous Source Doctrine- Under this exception, such an unlawfully acquired evidence against the defendant can be used against them if an autonomous person later confirmed it. However, such a person should not have any interest in the case at hand (Cole, 1999). Therefore their reports of such evidence should be filed out of goodwill and without any form of coercion,

Case Law Related to the Use of Force: Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. (2018)

In this case, the defendant was a police officer (Kisela), and the plaintiff was Hughes. Kisela and a few other officers responded to a 911 call after her mentally ill roommate threatened a woman. Once at the scene, Kisela found Hughes holding a knife and getting closer to harming her roommate. Kisela gave three orders to the plaintiff to drop the knife, but she declined. Kisela then fired at her and injured her. The injuries, however, were not 'life-threatening" as per the medical reports. Various witnesses, as well as Kiselas colleagues, agreed to the fact that at the point when Kisela fired at Hughes, she was an apparent threat to her roommate.

Although Hughes had a history of violence due to her mental condition, her roommate claimed that she didn't feel threatened at the point when Kisela fired. .Hughes sued Kisela, alleging excessive force, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court ruled in favor of the police officer. This was the reverse of the ninth circuit. Whereas the officer was not in any danger (since he was armed with a superior weapon), Hughes's roommate's life was evidently in danger. The police officer also didn't have the information that the plaintiff had a mental condition. As such, he had only a few seconds to figure out how to save the life of Hughes's roommate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, unlike in other countries, criminal justice in the United States of America is comprised of a network of systems. Such systems do not solely depend on the constitution but rather on other legal sources of rights as well as principles. Criminal justice in the United States is also mostly neutral. As thus, it seeks to foster the rule of law while respecting the rights of the suspects. Therefore, there is a clear outline of various procedures that ought to be followed in executing criminal justice in this nation.

References

Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system (Vol. 1). New York: New Press.

Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (2003). Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hagan, F. E. (2000). Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts (p. 21). Boston: Little, Brown.