Criminal Justice and the American Bill of Rights Paper Example

One of the main objectives of the American Constitution is to create a system of government which is geared towards the protection of people's fundamental rights (Stephens & Scheb, 2008:3). This is because even as people exit the state of nature and into civil society using a social contract, they only surrender to the state-specific natural rights needed for the government to maintain social order. People still retaining natural rights that are derived from the laws of nature which are fundamental to human existence (MacAfee 1991). Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined these natural rights as unalienable rights which encompass 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' America's founding fathers were heavily influenced by the Natural law school of legal philosophy which insists that individual rights are not granted by the state but rather, they are derived from 'the laws of nature'(Stephens & Scheb,2008:3). As such, they inherently belonging to all human beings. From this perspective, American citizens have the right to live their private lives how they want as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others, or commit crimes.

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

Save 25%

The framers of the Constitution believed that limited government was the best way to protect individual rights from the danger of public power being used to arbitrarily take away or limit an individual citizen's natural rights (Stephens & Scheb, 2008:3). This is why there was a push during debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution, that as a founding document for the United States, it had to have express provisions on the rights of individuals. Through the efforts of James Madison, a Bill of Rights was incorporated into the American Constitution in 1791.

In The Federalist, No. 84, Alexander Hamilton argued that since the Constitution provided for limited government through enumerated powers, a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, however, this omission of a Bill of Rights was regarded as a major defect by numerous critics (Stephens & Scheb, 2008:9). One such critic was Thomas Jefferson who argued tried to persuade James Madison, the person most responsible for the contents of the Constitution, that as America's founding document, the Constitution must have a Bill of Rights (Stephens & Scheb, 2008:9). Jefferson's view received overwhelming support and incorporating a Bill of Rights in the Constitution became important in winning the support needed to ratify it (Stephens & Scheb, 2008:9). A Bill of Rights was included into the American Constitution as amendments to the Constitution that were ratified by Congress in November 1791.

When people created governments through social contracts, they surrender their natural right to deal with crimes and criminal behavior to the government which in turn creates an obligation on the state to use its power to protect law-abiding citizens from criminals (Stephens & Scheb, 2008:286). The American government must, however, fulfill this function while taking great care not to infringe on constitutional rights of people who are suspected of committing crimes; accused of committing crimes; and convicted of convicting crimes (Stephens & Scheb, 2008:286). Striking a balance between crime control concerns with the constitutional rights of people in conflict with criminal law is the most common problem facing trial and appellate courts in America raising 'vexing questions of constitutional law.'

The Bill of Rights is the normative framework for protecting persons suspected, accused, or convicted of crimes (Stephens & Scheb 2008:286). This is because several provisions in the Bill of Rights govern the criminal justice in the United States since they were designed to prevent the government from making people suffer arbitrary arrest; unfair prosecution; and disproportional punishments.

The 4th Amendment prevents the government from having unlimited power of search and seizures by police or other state actors(Stephen & Scheb 2008:11). The 5th Amendment prohibits the limiting a citizen's constitutional through an exercise of public power by the state which doesn't follow the due process of the law (Stephen & Scheb 2008:12). This 'due process' clause has been defined as the most basic protection guaranteed by the Constitution. It has been defined as an obligation on the state to use public power within the limits imposed on it by the Constitution to avoid an arbitrary violation of the constitutional rights of individuals (Stephen & Scheb 2008:12). The historical roots of this due process clause are the Magna Carta.The 6th Amendment defines the ingredients of the right to a fair trial (Stephen & Scheb 2008:12). The 14th Amendment makes all laws at the state level comply with the due process clause in the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that a suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy limits the government's power of search and seizure during criminal investigations (Stephens & Scheb 2008: 287). The exceptions to this rule are abandoned or discarded property or for the open areas around a home, even if that area is private property because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Oliver v. the United States [1984]; Katz v United States, [1967]; Kyllo v. the United States [2001]). In Illinois v Gates (1983), the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment to mean that for the exercise of the government's power of search and seizures to be lawful, it needs to be done after securing a warrant after the police convince a judge there is probable cause to justify a search.

The term 'probable cause' in the context of criminal investigation means the reasonable belief by an investigating officer that, given the circumstances of a case, a search will produce actionable evidence of a crime (Stephens & Scheb 2008:290; Brinegar v United States [1949]). The constitutional obligation on the police to first get a search warrant may be avoided is it can be shown that there was a reasonable basis for a police search without a warrant (Stephens & Scheb 2008: 290-294). For example, in Chimel v California (1969), a warrantless search was deemed reasonable because it was incidental to the policy affecting an arrest.

The Supreme Court in Weeks v United States (1914), determined that evidence obtained in a way that violates the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in federal courts. This decision is the origin of what is commonly referred to as the exclusionary rule. This rule was then extended to criminal proceedings at the State level in Mapp v Ohio, (1961), however, Supreme Court in the United States v Calandra (1974) narrowed the scope of the exclusionary rule from an absolute prohibition against evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment to an inquiry into whether there is an overriding public interest in allowing the evidence in order to secure a conviction. This decision became the basis for the good faith exception to this rule. The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Sheppard (1984) determined that evidence seized from the execution of a defective warrant is admissible if the police had the honest belief it was a valid warrant. The Supreme Court in Hudson v Michigan (2006) determined that a violation of the "knock and announce" rule doesn't make the evidence seized as the result of the subsequent search inadmissible.

A lawful arrest, at federal or state levels, must comply with the probable cause and warrant requirements under the 4th Amendment (Ker v. California [1963]). The exception to this rule is warrantless arrests when police see someone in the process of committing a crime or believe a suspect may have information the police need in their criminal investigations(Stephens & Scheb 2008: 298). A warrantless arrest must therefore still be grounded in probable cause for it to be reasonable. Since suspects often resist arrest, police on occasion must use force to take a person into custody.

Conclusion

The 4th Amendment limits police to use reasonable force when it is necessary to overcome resistance while making an arrest (Stephens & Sheba 2008:299). The Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) held that police officer may resort to the use of force when a suspect is attempting to escape arrest or if a person who the police want to arrest is a significant threat because they may cause death or physical injury to the arresting officer or members of the public. This is why a police officer two years ago was sentenced to 5 years in prison for excessive use of force (Department of Justice 2017). The facts were that while affecting an arrest on a person they suspected of stealing a tomato in s supermarket, they assaulted and broke the leg of the person being arrested.

References

Department of Justice, 8th December 2017, "Jury Convicts Former Atlanta Police Sergeant for Using Excessive Force to Break Wal-Mart Customer's Leg." Available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jury-convicts-former-atlanta-police-sergeant-using-excessive-force-break-walmart-customer-s

MacAfee, TB (1991). The Bill of Rights, Social Contract Theory, and the Rights Retained by the People. S. Ill. ULJ, Vol .16, pp. 267.

Brockelbank, WJ (1954). Role of Due Process in American Constitutional Law. Cornell L. Rev, Vol 39, pp.561. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol39/iss4/1

Stephens, OH & Scheb, JM (2008). American Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Liberties, 4th edition, New York: Thompson Publishers.