Abstract
This paper examines the criminal justice system of the United States and how it operates. It commences with a review of the judicial system of America and proceeds to examine government policies and how they have been utilized to deal with crime. Evidence shows that there is a challenge of defining an objective system of criminal justice in the Unite,d States, since the Bill of Rights ensures the utilization of juries. This opens the floodgates to various inefficiencies that can compromise the true elements of cases.
A review of the OJ Simpson case shows that the criminal justice system in the United States is vulnerable to various forms of manipulation, whether of evidence or public perception, which can lead to various forms of public outcry. Because of this, it is very difficult to define objectively what it means to conduct a criminal case management process fairly in order to bring forth the truth and leave all doubt behind.
Research has shown that the United States differs from the UK and Germany in the manner in which justice is delivered, because these European countries often limit the civil liberties of their citizens in criminal cases. They also utilize various professionals in evaluating cases. This ensures that objectivity is pursued to a higher degree which leads to more reliable and consistent judicial resolutions. In this paper, I will argue that the United States might need to promote a better and more objective definition of major variables in criminal justice cases if it is to achieve more socially just and palatable outcomes.
Introduction
The justice system of the United States is regulated and constituted by Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court is in charge of the judicial system. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court will dispense justice alongside its inferior courts. This has culminated in a system of justice which now represents the United States’ legal system. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and review the American court and criminal justice system. This will be done in two forms – an absolute analysis and a comparative analysis with emphasis on other legal jurisdictions.
The American Justice and Court System
The United States’ legal system is made up of the federal court system and the state courts. The federal courts are limited in jurisdiction and can only hear cases authorized by law to be heard in such courts whilst those not authorized to be heard in federal courts are heard in state courts according to laws of the state. Cases related to federal statutes, the constitution, and treaties can only be heard in federal courts. In criminal proceedings, the case is brought by the prosecuting body or entity that is prosecuting the individual. State authorities can prosecute under state law whilst federal authorities can prosecute under federal law.
There are three classes of federal courts – district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. In civil cases where federal and state laws have jurisdiction over a given matter, parties can present the matter to any of the two courts. The federal courts are made up of judges who are appointed by the President by the confirmation and approval of the US Senate.
The US justice system is adversarial, a feature inherited from the English legal system. This implies that parties to any legal hearing present their cases according to the procedures before a neutral party who decides on it . The criminal justice system is based on the state or federal authorities representing the people presenting a case to prosecute an accused person. A civil case is about two different parties making competing claims on a given issue. A judge rules over the situation and comes up with a solution.
According to the authors, an independent judiciary made up of courts is vital to ensure that the justice system in the United States works. This is because judges are independent of political interference and from the influence of third parties. This implies that judges are to interpret and apply laws to cases based on material facts. They do this by applying the law on what is presented before them. The judge’s fundamental obligation is to ensure that rules are followed by both parties in court procedures and there is fairness on both sides in a given case.
Furthermore, the authors point out that judges ensure things are done on the basis of actual laws and regulations. This includes the application of procedures and systems to the very features of the case in question. This ensures objectivity and fair application of rules and regulations. In criminal cases, a jury made up of sworn citizens is convened. This jury then decides whether a given defendant is guilty or not guilty based on material facts. It examines the facts of each case and reviews the evidence in order to draw a conclusion based on the directions of the judges on the main legal pointers.
The American Criminal Justice System
Miller states that the American criminal justice system goes beyond just the judicial arm of the government (2012). The criminal justice system is made up of law enforcement authorities, courts and correctional agencies. These groups come together to deal with the criminal system, which involves major processes of controlling and dealing with crimes that occur within the United States.
Miller believes the criminal justice in the United States is limited in numerous ways. This was put into perspective when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Law Enforcement Assistance Act in 1967 to promote a framework for dealing with crime in a modern capitalist society. The Act was the handiwork of a commission authorized by the government to investigate crime in society and came up with the necessary measures to prevent the same. The commission’s recommendations were signed into law, suggesting that policing had to be enhanced in order to reflect the true needs of Americans.
I believe the Law Enforcement Assistance Act provided a much-needed avenue for funds and resources for controlling crime and for research into law enforcement. Through this, it seemed possible for each state and community to create a process whereby criminal justice could be relevant to the circumstances of every community. This resulted in positive results among authorities within the criminal justice system. Post that, there were systematic increases in government policy to deal with crime directly. These included, amongst others, President Ronald Reagan’s war on crime which increased the level of surveillance in areas where drugs and crime was rampant. This was a way of dealing with needs and expectations of society and provided major forms of policing powers in jurisdictions that had high levels of crime.
What followed was a corresponding increase in correctional infrastructure in the United States as part of the process of creating an efficient system for controlling crime. Incarceration became common after regulation and control of crime increased. This led to a system of promoting the arrest and jailing of people considered ‘high risk’ to society at large.
Miller (2012) argues that post the 1960s, the American criminal justice system witnessed a move from a punitive one to a rehabilitative one. To this end, there were major investments in correctional activities. Many professionals were hired to deal with prisoners and to help them become productive members of society. With the mindset of making US prisons learning points where psychologists and other professionals could work to give prisoners some skills, the system moved from being punitive (as it was before 1950) to an institution that had corrective measures and systems. More taxpayer dollars were invested in the criminal justice system. This led to the doubling and increasing of prisons and mass incarcerations which have continued into the 21st century.
Inherent Challenges of the Expanded Criminal Justice System
Several challenges sprang up with the new American criminal justice system after the 1960s. According to Stojkovic, Kalinich, & Klofas, there was a tilt toward mass incarceration and the regulation of society in ways that sought to meet certain goals (2012). For starters, there was the difficulty of defining what ‘crime’ is. Criminology is not a field reserved for a single discipline. It overlaps with law, sociology, religion, politics, psychology, philosophy and many other fields. As such, one issue can be interpreted in several different ways, making it extremely difficult to clearly define crime and criminal activities. There is a wide variation of crime, making it almost impossible for the criminal justice system to deal with problems and operate effectively. Many negative things which should have criminalized were treated with some degree of laxity which led to major injustices. At the same time, the strict adherence to laws resulted on many unfair decisions which perhaps could have been averted. The large levels of inconsistency in criminal justice in America have grown over the past few decades. This is mainly due to the inability to get an objective definition of ‘crime’.
There is the prevailing view that criminology is a system that is deliberately designed to protect certain classes of people while failing to protect others. Many groups and communities, for example, are often portrayed as being crime-free. Richer neighborhoods tend to be left largely unregulated. By contrast, major police patrols will often be the norm in areas that are considered dangerous – which tend to be poor neighborhoods with high crime rates. However, this only serves to further exacerbate a social divide that is entrenched by the presence of police patrol and activities.
The result of such heavy policing, massive supervision and the arguable unnecessary control of certain areas has led to the disproportionate representation of certain people in prisons. Although they make up just 12.3% of the population of the United States, African-Americans constitute nearly 40% of the entire American prison population First generation Latino-Americans born in the United States are also more likely to end up in American prisons when compared to their peers. These statistics serve to demonstrate the extent to which minorities are targeted by a criminal justice system that seems to be laser-focused on incarcerating them at all costs.
Given the obvious nature and shortcomings of the criminal justice system, there has been a public push toward collective action as a means of challenging the status quo. Interestingly, there have been other times in America’s recent history where certain groups were forced to rise up (and even riot) against an unfair criminal justice system that was deliberately and systematically targeting them. Today, this movement has grown to include incidents of police brutality and other pointers that were used as the basis for major riots and other features that have led the justice system to break down and fail to meet its crucial objectives in America.
Recently, People magazine revisited the factors of the case relating to Nicole Simpson’s murder back in 1994. She was, of course, the wife of O. J. Simpson, who evidence strongly suggested was the one who murdered Nicole. There were many violent marches that would take place before the case was finally laid to rest and O.J. Simpson walked away a free man.
However, I believe this case ultimately displayed that the United States was not being so clear cut when it came to defending its African-American population, proving once again that the criminal justice system was tilted towards the mass incarceration of this minority. The challenge inherent in defining crime was often used to overstate and hold African-Americans to a higher standard. More often than not, the poor handling of cases often goes against African-Americans because they are refused the right to a fair hearing.
However, the information provided by Kris Jenner to People magazine seems to reinforce the view that the American criminal justice system is one that is open to manipulation. In this article, Kris Jenner seems to suggest she has no doubt that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole. She goes on to state that after the murder occurred, OJ Simpson contacted her and went out of his way to stat that he had not murdered Nicole. However, she insists she did not believe the words of OJ because, from a logical perspective, his admission of innocence did not make sense.
She later stated in the interview with the People Magazine that "I'm a very logical person. I want to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence was so strong. [What he said] didn't have any effect on what I thought." However, the fact remains that OJ Simpson was able to wiggle his way through the criminal justice system and was acquitted because the jury simply presumed he was not guilty on account of there being little evidence pointing to the contrary.
I believe that the high level of doubt expressed by Kris Jenner, who was very close to the couple, shows the extent to which the US criminal justice system can be manipulated and abused. Whether you are inclined to agree with the final verdict or not, the OJ Simpson trial shows the challenge of objectivity facing the US criminal justice system. If OJ was truly not guilt, it simply reinforces the notion that the African-American population is unfairly picked on and treated unfairly on account of their racial background. If OJ was guilty and wrongly acquitted, it only serves to reinforce that the American justice system is problematic and unable to deal with complex circumstances.
Comparative Analysis of the US Criminal Justice System
A fundamental difference between the US and UK criminal justice system is the fact that the American system is based on initial indictment by a grand jury. However, in the UK, a magistrate court comprised of three judges defines whether to prosecute a case or not. The need for an indictment by grand jury in the United States is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, a fundamental right of every American.
In the United States, the defendant and prosecutor decide on the members of the jury, but in the UK, the staff of the Crown Prosecution Service chooses the jury members randomly. This is yet another example of the libertarian system of the United States.
Germany also contrasts sharply with the United States in terms of criminal justice. Germany has a single set of criminal code although it is a federal country like the United States. What this means is that there are no federal courts and state courts like in the United States. Germany, like the United States, has its prosecution process commenced by the police. However, Germany does not have a jury system. Every case is handled by a judge who puts together the questions and asks them to the parties. The judge decides on the basis of the different perspectives presented by the parties making contesting claims.
In Germany, every charge is subjected to judicial review whilst the preliminary hearing and grand jury applies in the United States. It is through these different approaches that cases are judged as fit for trial or not. Evidence is checked and rechecked and the decision to prosecute or not continues.
It can be seen that both the UK and Germany utilize professionals and are willing to limit the liberties of their citizens in order to pursue criminal justice. In the US, laymen are introduced at basic stages and this gives room for lower levels of efficiency while dealing with issues to eliminate the problems and challenges of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
The American criminal justice system is based on an independent judiciary but limited by the Constitution which guarantees the rights of individuals in society. The criminal justice system of the United States is adversarial and is opened to several externalities like public opinion, subjectivity, discrimination and segregation in society. Cases like that of OJ Simpson show that the system is open to manipulation and the quest for an objective system of defining crime is limited. The UK and Germany have systems whereby professionals are used in the judicial system to guarantee a higher level of objectivity in judging cases.
References
Barkan, S. E., & Bryjak, G. J. (2012). Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View. New York: Jones and Bartlett.
Braithwaite, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Treadwell, H. M. (2012). Health Issues in the Black Community. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Eko, L. S. (2014). New Media, Old Regimes: Case Studies in Comparative Communication Law and Policy (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Lexington Books.
Huff, R., & Killias, M. (2013). Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedie. New York: Routledge.
Miller, W. R. (2012). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE Publications.
Neubauer, D. W. (2013). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. New Orleans: New Orleans University.
People Magazine. (2016, February 8). Shocking New Details - Justice for Nicole. People Magazine.
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2012). Criminal Justice Organizations: Administration and Management. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth Publishing.
