Susannah Krug
American Courts Midterm
Question 1:
Our court system has many aspects of itself. Sometimes it appears to champion the values of the everyday person. Someday it appears to go along with the bureaucracy it has set up for itself. No model can accurately describe every aspect of every court system in America. However, after reading Packer’s article on the two types of criminal justice system, I believe that our system more accurately reflects a due process model. Throughout this essay, we can examine the aspects that illustrate this leaning.
One aspect of our court system is that the attorney representing the defendant can request that the court recognize that there is not enough evidence to convict you and the case can be thrown out. This is clearly not a Crime Control Model value because it is an obstacle that the state (i.e. prosecutors) must constantly overcome. We set up other obstacles for the state, such as appeals courts to review the decision of lower courts to make sure a human error has not occurred, or we require the police and the prosecution to follow certain rules respecting our privacy in order to obtain evidence of our wrongdoings (Katz v. United States, Kyllo v. United States). We believe that it is an important job of society to repress crime but not at the cost of all of us living in a police state. Many prosecutors also use grand juries as fact-finding tools because we as a society feel that what people say in court is more sacred and possibly less coerced than when that same witness or suspect says something to the police. All of these illustrate values that are in tune with the Due Process model. Even the fact that we say there is something wrong with our system when so many cases are being pled out exemplifies our reliance and trust in the trial system.
Kyllo v. United States also demonstrates our concept of legal guilt and how it is separate from actual guilt. The lawyers in this case were not claiming that the defendant was not actually growing marijuana in his house. What they were claiming was that the police had no right to know that he was and therefore he was not legally guilty of the crime but he was obviously factually guilty. Everyone knew this and this point was not a point of contention in the trial. This concept of legal guilt and our acceptance of when a factually guilty man goes free because he is legally innocent goes along with our view that the job of the court system "is at least as much to protect the factually innocent as it is to convict the factually guilty." (Packer, pg 165)
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." All of the Sixth Amendment sets up roadblocks for the state to convict defendants but the part assigning indigent defendants counsel implies our belief that every person should have equal representation in court. "There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial gets depends on how much money a man has" (Packer, pg 168). Equality being a key portion of the Due Process model, this also illustrates our commitment to this model.
In conclusion, our belief in and practice of the principles of legal guilt, equality and the many obstacles that we place in front of the state in order to convict a suspect all come together to me in an overwhelming amount of evidence that our system leans towards the Due Process model. Obviously not all of our system conforms to this model because these models are meant to be polarized opposites, but on the whole, the evidence shows our preference for protecting the innocent over convicting all the guilty.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Final exam for American Courts
Susannah Krug
March 16, 2007
Final Exam for American Courts
Question #1:
Discrimination is often decried as one of the main problems with our current court system. With both African-Americans and Hispanics over represented in the criminal justice system in proportion to their percentage of the population, many social scientists and criminal justice researchers have focused on why this might be. Most research has been performed on African-Americans and this limits the usefulness of this data for Hispanics, but does not negate the question of whether or not this data might hold true for other ethnic minorities such as Hispanics or Native Americans.
According to Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch, blacks do not receive harsher sentences based solely on race, once seriousness of the charge and previous criminal record were controlled for. There was some wealth discrimination found though and since minorities are more likely to be disproportionately poor, this could be seen as indirect racial discrimination or just plain wealth discrimination. Either way, we probably should not be discriminating against people based on how much money they have. Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch also found that when sentenced, blacks were 5 percent more likely to be sentenced to short jail time than probation. This is after controlling for all the other factors, so this is direct racial discrimination. "This five percent difference means that blacks are 20 percent more likely than whites to be incarcerated" (Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch, pg 9).
Marjorie Zatz finds that "at both the adult and juvenile levels, poor people and people of color are more likely to be detained pending trial, and pretrial detention results in harsher sentencing outcomes" (Zatz, pg 5). She finds clear race effects in the lower level felonies where prosecutors have a lot of leeway to make charging decisions and other decisions that affect the outcome of a case. She repeatedly states that small racial discrimination at each level of the criminal justice system eventually adds up to a large racial discrimination at the end of the process. Also, in death penalty cases, the race of the victim is the largest determining factor of whether the death penalty is pursued. However, I am not sure whether that discriminates against defendants of color.
The first change that I would recommend would be to have set guidelines for charging decisions. This idea would be sort of like determinate sentencing only for prosecutors. This might prevent some of the variance found in the charging of minority defendants. This will prevent some of the indirect racial discrimination found by Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch and Zatz in determining how the defendants are charged.
My second change would be to provide a lawyer to every single person that comes through the criminal justice system. While this would be a sweeping change and I do not know how it would pass politically, it would prevent the wealth discrimination found by both of the previously mentioned researchers. There would not be an option for people to have their own private attorneys. This would prevent both the perception of "bought justice" and the actuality of indirect minority discrimination since minorities are disproportionately poor.
Question #2: I have chosen to create a description of prosecutors. Obviously the main job of the prosecutor is to decide which cases the police have enough evidence on to pursue going to trial. They are then responsible for presenting the best possible case for the state They also handle the decisions with what charge to place on people that are detained by the police and requesting certain amount of bail based on previous charges of the person, severity of the crime and other factors that go into that determination. Also, the guidelines set forth by the American Bar Association state that the prosecutor has a duty to represent the face of the criminal justice system and as such have the duty of seeking justice, not just convicting people. They represent the government and are expected to follow the guidelines set forth for legal conduct.
Acting with correct legal conduct for prosecutors’ means advocating justice, not just pursuing convictions. The prosecutors overarching goal has to be to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system. Advocating justice means not participating in underhanded or unethical techniques that might produce a conviction, but would not preserve the integrity. Prosecutors should not participate in any unauthorized discussions or submissions of material to a judge without the defense attorney present. They also should be alert to conflicts of interest that may exist for them personally or professionally and refer the case to another prosecutor if this should happen.
Interacting with the other members of the courtroom ought to always be one of respect, including what limited contact the prosecutor might have with the defendant. The prosecutor should always address the court while court is in session, as opposed to speaking to the opposing counsel. The prosecutor ought not to try and pressure an unrepresented defendant into signing away important legal rights or even speak to him without having the defendant sign a waiver of counsel.
In handling cases, the prosecutor has a limited investigative role. This role only comes into play when other agencies have not done their job in fully investigating. The prosecutor is expected to not discriminate against the defendant based on race, gender or other factors that do not affect the defendants’ guilt. They also should maintain the highest integrity in how evidence is obtained. A prosecutor should avoid interviewing a potential witness except in the presence of a third party. The prosecutor makes the decision to charge and what charges to charge the defendant on. This obviously imbues the prosecutors’ office with a lot of power. A prosecutor presents the evidence to a grand jury if that is necessary. A prosecutor also discloses evidence to the defense counsel in a timely manner so as to give them time to properly prepare an adequate defense for the defendant.
I think that the overarching theme for the role of the prosecutor is to maintain a professional and ethical stance in all of their dealings, inside and outside of the courtroom.
Question # 3:
As a case goes through problem solving courts, it is treated slightly differently than when the case goes through a traditional court system. In a traditional court system, there are the same resources available to everyone. In a problem-solving court, there is more of an effort to make sure that the resources match the severity of the problem. For example, in drug court, they frequently pursue partnerships with outside providers of drug treatment programs because they want to have the sense of involvement and because they want to have these options available so that they can send the people that need it to that sort of treatment. They also try to involve the community in the criminal justice procedure. This provides some education to the general public about what the justice system has to deal with but also fosters a sense of responsibility with the outside community. With traditional courts, the community frequently and most of the time correctly feel alienated from the courts and feel like all they do is sit around and try to think up ways to screw regular people.
Frequently judges in traditional court systems refer people to social service agencies to obtain help, but most of the time there is no way for the judge to know whether or not this help was actually obtained and most defendants feel lost or do not understand the system so they do not obtain the help. Problem-solving courts attempt to have more systems in place for the court and social service agencies to work together to offer services to defendants that need help. Generally when a judge sentences a defendant to parole or probation, the case goes to a probation officer that more than likely has over 200 cases and has literally no time to oversee any of the cases that they have. In a problem-solving court, more oversight is given and generally is in the form of the judge seeing the defendant in court to see that treatment is being followed. Judges in problem-solving courts look for more information to give them background information on the issues and concerns of defendants. This focus on information also bleeds over into a focus on results and hard numbers on the effect of the court.
I think the focus of problem-solving courts as courts that try to understand the problems that are behind the crimes that are committed and then trying to help fix the problems as opposed to just punishing the crime committed is definitely opposed to my traditional view of courts. In my mind, the job of the courts is not to fix social ills and drug abuse but to go ahead and sentence based on the crimes that are committed. However, I think that traditional court systems have been operating off of this system for many years and obviously there needs to be a change. Recidivism amongst defendants in court systems is high and our jails are overcrowded. Evidently a change to our system has to happen or these ills will continue.
Many times in traditional systems, judges feel like they sit up in their seat and are not able to say anything that would imply that they too involved in the case and they feel trapped in their role as arbitrors of justice. I would argue, as does the Good Courts book, that many judges in problem-solving courts actually feel like they have a bigger impact on their defendants and the world than in traditional systems. I think this is because they are able to see defendants as follow-up to the treatment they required them to do and they are able to see with the focus on results, the impact they are having on the local community. I think that the role of the defense attorney changes in problem solving courts also. Generally in these courts there is no need for the rhetoric spouted by the defense attorney, but you have to ask yourself if that rhetoric was originally developed for a good reason (defending clients).
March 16, 2007
Final Exam for American Courts
Question #1:
Discrimination is often decried as one of the main problems with our current court system. With both African-Americans and Hispanics over represented in the criminal justice system in proportion to their percentage of the population, many social scientists and criminal justice researchers have focused on why this might be. Most research has been performed on African-Americans and this limits the usefulness of this data for Hispanics, but does not negate the question of whether or not this data might hold true for other ethnic minorities such as Hispanics or Native Americans.
According to Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch, blacks do not receive harsher sentences based solely on race, once seriousness of the charge and previous criminal record were controlled for. There was some wealth discrimination found though and since minorities are more likely to be disproportionately poor, this could be seen as indirect racial discrimination or just plain wealth discrimination. Either way, we probably should not be discriminating against people based on how much money they have. Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch also found that when sentenced, blacks were 5 percent more likely to be sentenced to short jail time than probation. This is after controlling for all the other factors, so this is direct racial discrimination. "This five percent difference means that blacks are 20 percent more likely than whites to be incarcerated" (Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch, pg 9).
Marjorie Zatz finds that "at both the adult and juvenile levels, poor people and people of color are more likely to be detained pending trial, and pretrial detention results in harsher sentencing outcomes" (Zatz, pg 5). She finds clear race effects in the lower level felonies where prosecutors have a lot of leeway to make charging decisions and other decisions that affect the outcome of a case. She repeatedly states that small racial discrimination at each level of the criminal justice system eventually adds up to a large racial discrimination at the end of the process. Also, in death penalty cases, the race of the victim is the largest determining factor of whether the death penalty is pursued. However, I am not sure whether that discriminates against defendants of color.
The first change that I would recommend would be to have set guidelines for charging decisions. This idea would be sort of like determinate sentencing only for prosecutors. This might prevent some of the variance found in the charging of minority defendants. This will prevent some of the indirect racial discrimination found by Spohn, Cassia, Gruhl, and Welch and Zatz in determining how the defendants are charged.
My second change would be to provide a lawyer to every single person that comes through the criminal justice system. While this would be a sweeping change and I do not know how it would pass politically, it would prevent the wealth discrimination found by both of the previously mentioned researchers. There would not be an option for people to have their own private attorneys. This would prevent both the perception of "bought justice" and the actuality of indirect minority discrimination since minorities are disproportionately poor.
Question #2: I have chosen to create a description of prosecutors. Obviously the main job of the prosecutor is to decide which cases the police have enough evidence on to pursue going to trial. They are then responsible for presenting the best possible case for the state They also handle the decisions with what charge to place on people that are detained by the police and requesting certain amount of bail based on previous charges of the person, severity of the crime and other factors that go into that determination. Also, the guidelines set forth by the American Bar Association state that the prosecutor has a duty to represent the face of the criminal justice system and as such have the duty of seeking justice, not just convicting people. They represent the government and are expected to follow the guidelines set forth for legal conduct.
Acting with correct legal conduct for prosecutors’ means advocating justice, not just pursuing convictions. The prosecutors overarching goal has to be to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system. Advocating justice means not participating in underhanded or unethical techniques that might produce a conviction, but would not preserve the integrity. Prosecutors should not participate in any unauthorized discussions or submissions of material to a judge without the defense attorney present. They also should be alert to conflicts of interest that may exist for them personally or professionally and refer the case to another prosecutor if this should happen.
Interacting with the other members of the courtroom ought to always be one of respect, including what limited contact the prosecutor might have with the defendant. The prosecutor should always address the court while court is in session, as opposed to speaking to the opposing counsel. The prosecutor ought not to try and pressure an unrepresented defendant into signing away important legal rights or even speak to him without having the defendant sign a waiver of counsel.
In handling cases, the prosecutor has a limited investigative role. This role only comes into play when other agencies have not done their job in fully investigating. The prosecutor is expected to not discriminate against the defendant based on race, gender or other factors that do not affect the defendants’ guilt. They also should maintain the highest integrity in how evidence is obtained. A prosecutor should avoid interviewing a potential witness except in the presence of a third party. The prosecutor makes the decision to charge and what charges to charge the defendant on. This obviously imbues the prosecutors’ office with a lot of power. A prosecutor presents the evidence to a grand jury if that is necessary. A prosecutor also discloses evidence to the defense counsel in a timely manner so as to give them time to properly prepare an adequate defense for the defendant.
I think that the overarching theme for the role of the prosecutor is to maintain a professional and ethical stance in all of their dealings, inside and outside of the courtroom.
Question # 3:
As a case goes through problem solving courts, it is treated slightly differently than when the case goes through a traditional court system. In a traditional court system, there are the same resources available to everyone. In a problem-solving court, there is more of an effort to make sure that the resources match the severity of the problem. For example, in drug court, they frequently pursue partnerships with outside providers of drug treatment programs because they want to have the sense of involvement and because they want to have these options available so that they can send the people that need it to that sort of treatment. They also try to involve the community in the criminal justice procedure. This provides some education to the general public about what the justice system has to deal with but also fosters a sense of responsibility with the outside community. With traditional courts, the community frequently and most of the time correctly feel alienated from the courts and feel like all they do is sit around and try to think up ways to screw regular people.
Frequently judges in traditional court systems refer people to social service agencies to obtain help, but most of the time there is no way for the judge to know whether or not this help was actually obtained and most defendants feel lost or do not understand the system so they do not obtain the help. Problem-solving courts attempt to have more systems in place for the court and social service agencies to work together to offer services to defendants that need help. Generally when a judge sentences a defendant to parole or probation, the case goes to a probation officer that more than likely has over 200 cases and has literally no time to oversee any of the cases that they have. In a problem-solving court, more oversight is given and generally is in the form of the judge seeing the defendant in court to see that treatment is being followed. Judges in problem-solving courts look for more information to give them background information on the issues and concerns of defendants. This focus on information also bleeds over into a focus on results and hard numbers on the effect of the court.
I think the focus of problem-solving courts as courts that try to understand the problems that are behind the crimes that are committed and then trying to help fix the problems as opposed to just punishing the crime committed is definitely opposed to my traditional view of courts. In my mind, the job of the courts is not to fix social ills and drug abuse but to go ahead and sentence based on the crimes that are committed. However, I think that traditional court systems have been operating off of this system for many years and obviously there needs to be a change. Recidivism amongst defendants in court systems is high and our jails are overcrowded. Evidently a change to our system has to happen or these ills will continue.
Many times in traditional systems, judges feel like they sit up in their seat and are not able to say anything that would imply that they too involved in the case and they feel trapped in their role as arbitrors of justice. I would argue, as does the Good Courts book, that many judges in problem-solving courts actually feel like they have a bigger impact on their defendants and the world than in traditional systems. I think this is because they are able to see defendants as follow-up to the treatment they required them to do and they are able to see with the focus on results, the impact they are having on the local community. I think that the role of the defense attorney changes in problem solving courts also. Generally in these courts there is no need for the rhetoric spouted by the defense attorney, but you have to ask yourself if that rhetoric was originally developed for a good reason (defending clients).
About Me
About Me Assignment for WCC
April 4, 2007
My name is Susannah and I am a political science major here at Portland State. Some quick personal information includes that I live in ***** with my husband and our two foster children (3 and 5) and our pets. The reason I am taking online classes this term is I am expecting our first child this summer and that involves lots of doctors appointments (as you probably could guess) which take up a lot of time. Right now I am also interning for Rep. David Edwards in Salem this term and that adds up to a pretty hectic schedule.
I am in my 4th year at Portland State but due to my personal situation, I am finishing up my degree next year. I want to go to law school after graduating. I am actually thinking that I would like to go ahead and practice family law, but I have taken quite a range of the CJ classes so that in case I change my mind, I can have a different perspective on it than they will give me in law school. My interest in WCC is general. I am always amazed that we as a society feel that crimes that impoverish hundreds of people in their old age are less violent than crimes that kill one person on the street. I also have always wondered what amount of research has been done on WCC recidivism. My knowledge is little and is really limited to what I learned in Crime Control Methods a couple of years back and also some business classes I have taken have addressed how as a manager I should try and prevent these crimes from occurring.
My expectations for this class more familiarity with what constitutes WCC and where it occurs. I would like to find out more about what methods are used to try and prevent WCC and how effective these methods are. Also, any information on WCC recidivism would be very interesting to me.
April 4, 2007
My name is Susannah and I am a political science major here at Portland State. Some quick personal information includes that I live in ***** with my husband and our two foster children (3 and 5) and our pets. The reason I am taking online classes this term is I am expecting our first child this summer and that involves lots of doctors appointments (as you probably could guess) which take up a lot of time. Right now I am also interning for Rep. David Edwards in Salem this term and that adds up to a pretty hectic schedule.
I am in my 4th year at Portland State but due to my personal situation, I am finishing up my degree next year. I want to go to law school after graduating. I am actually thinking that I would like to go ahead and practice family law, but I have taken quite a range of the CJ classes so that in case I change my mind, I can have a different perspective on it than they will give me in law school. My interest in WCC is general. I am always amazed that we as a society feel that crimes that impoverish hundreds of people in their old age are less violent than crimes that kill one person on the street. I also have always wondered what amount of research has been done on WCC recidivism. My knowledge is little and is really limited to what I learned in Crime Control Methods a couple of years back and also some business classes I have taken have addressed how as a manager I should try and prevent these crimes from occurring.
My expectations for this class more familiarity with what constitutes WCC and where it occurs. I would like to find out more about what methods are used to try and prevent WCC and how effective these methods are. Also, any information on WCC recidivism would be very interesting to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)