Criminal procedures refer to the sections of constitutional law that are mainly concerned with the rules and regulations governing the procedures through which institutions investigate and prosecute crimes. These criminal procedures provide that individuals involved in crimes are fairly treated during the trials they undergo ensuring that justice is highly upheld. They guarantee that human rights are not violated and the right actions and measures are taken. Both the police and suspects should not violate the rules as stated in the criminal procedures by the law or Constitution.
Analysis of the United States’ Constitution for a Practical Understanding of the Criminal Procedure
The Constitution is a very vital tool that any nation should have. It provides guidelines on how things should be conducted and addressed. For instance, any constitution states the kind of actions and measures to be taken in an attempt to deal with certain changes that might take place (Michael, 2011). The US Constitution, for example, has certain provisions that guide the criminal procedures.
Criminal procedures in the United States are found in the Article Three of the Constitution. They are also stated in the United States’ Bill of Rights, specifically the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. The Constitution provides all the procedures that are to be followed without any neglect by those involved in crimes. Both the police and the suspects are supposed to respect and comply with the criminal procedures stated by in the Constitution; the failure to do so will be regarded as a crime. For example, the Constitution provides that suspects are allowed to sue the police in cases when they are falsely arrested and illegally detained or when the force is used against them by the police.
The Constitution also provides that proper procedures should be followed in ensuring that justice is upheld even as the suspects try to fight for their rights that are occasionally violated by the police. The Constitution, therefore, states that he police is allowed to neither falsely detain individuals nor apply force to arrest people who engage in crimes (Mackin, 2011). Proper procedures should be strictly followed as stated by the law. For example, Joe Morgan was an American auditor falsely arrested by the police that had targeted him due to the fact that he had a profile of a drug courier. He was, therefore, justified to sue the police for their acts and was compensated in the end.
The Constitution as well provides that the suspects are allowed to pass through various stages of court trials in cases when they feel unsatisfied with the decisions of one court. For example, when a trial has been carried out by a lower court and the suspect feels that justice has not been fully exercised, he has the right to take the case to the next level of court. When justice is not exercised, the court of the higher level, which is in most cases the court of appeal, takes the case.
The United States’ Constitution also provides and states how the police should gather information and deal with the criminal suspects. It seeks to balance the powers between the police and the citizens in the sense that no one is allowed to violate human rights and disobey what is stated by the law. The failure to observe the Constitution will be illegal. It is also provided that no person should be deprived of life, property, or liberty without due law process (Lax, 2011). The police are not allowed and have no powers to deprive the criminal suspects of life unless they are forced to kill in an attempt to protect themselves from the suspects. Indeed, depriving somebody of life is unlawful in the US.
being the part of our team!
Join our Affiliate program!
Appellate Case Decision
In cases where the lower courts may have failed to exercise justice, the court in the higher rank takes up the responsibility to ensure that justice is provided. The courts of higher ranks are commonly called courts of appeal or appeal courts. They follow certain rules that govern them in their decision-making processes. They review decisions made by the lower courts and then give final decisions with regard to certain issues or cases involved. These courts also determine whether the lower courts made appropriate trials or not; in incidences when the latter failed, the appellate courts are authorized to make final decisions. They aim at ensuring that justice is fully exercised at all grounds without any violation (Jeffrey, 2011). In the United States and other parts of the world, these courts play a major role in making final decisions by correcting errors and mistakes committed by lower courts.
The Role of Judiciary and Rule of Law in the Society
The judiciary and rule of law do play significant roles in the society. For example, the judiciary ensures that there is the exercise of justice in all spheres and fairness in the society with regard to certain issues. The judiciary guarantees that the citizens of a given nation are fairly treated before the law without any discrimination. It claims that all the people should be treated equally by the law irrespective of who they are in terms of the status and positions they hold in the society as well as their race, geographical location or other factors that may bring about injustices in the society. Justice in the society enables the equitable distribution of resources as people are equally treated (Lax, 2011). Development benefits, on the other hand, are also distributed equally without any bias since everyone is seen to be equal before the law. In a just society, people who are lawbreakers always undergo the fair judgments without any bias.
The judiciary also helps in the eradication of corruption by providing laws and rules that help to deal with those associated with corruption. Therefore, it maintains law and order as well as provides rules and regulations to be followed systematically when dealing with issues like criminal cases. The fact that it ensures justice in the society brings about the sense of equity and oneness in the sense that people feel that they are equal and no one is superior to others. This, therefore, helps reduce the chances of people to involve in conflicts which, in most cases, are brought about by the injustices and unfairness that do exist in the society. This is caused by the unequal distribution of resources whereby one community is able to control access and utilize the resources available while the other community has no ability to reach any because of injustice (Mackin, 2011).
In this regard, those who may feel marginalized or isolated in the society because of the influence of the law have the need to be recognized. In their attempt to realize this, they may opt to involve in conflicts so as to fight for their rights that are being violated. With the judiciary, the cases of conflicts may not occur at all because of the equity that would have been brought about by the judicial system in the society.
Moreover, the judiciary and rule of law ensures that there is accountability, transparency, and equity in a given society. The rule of law ensures that everybody is treated equally before the law. For example, those involved in criminal offences get a fair sentence based on the type of offences they have committed. Therefore, the common law or constitution should act as a common guide when dealing with certain issues (Jeffrey, 2011).
The aspect of accountability is also enhanced in the sense that people are made accountable and responsible for their actions. Accountability and responsibility helps to bring about order in the society as individuals become cautious of what they do and the impacts it might have on others. The rule of law helps to bring about transparency meaning that it does not support any forms of corruption at all grounds. In fact, the law provides strict actions that ought to be taken against those who exercise corruption. People are, therefore, encouraged to be open and transparent in their duties without involving in corruption as they will be forced to face the consequences of their actions.
Historical Evolution of Procedural Doctrines, Standards, and Tests
Evolution of procedural doctrines, standards, and tests is traced back to the early 1791. This was as a result of the adverse effects that were being realized by the application of rules which were similar to make trials in courts and deal with other cases in various institutions (Michael, 2011). Certain doctrines, standards and tests were introduced since it was noticed that personal rights like the lacks of freedom of persons’ speech had a negative impact on the welfare of the public. For example, the First Amendment regarding the freedom of speech came into effect in 1791. At that time, those who spoke their mind to the public on the burning issues were to be arrested. The doctrines adopted by the government of the United States to regulate the freedom of speech during the First World War presented a vivid danger. The amendment was justified by Justice Robert Jackson in 1943 during the case West Virginia v. Barnette. It was opposed to the rules that had been put in place and used to solve similar cases. The previous rules were very rigid; they could not change yet the issues that were being dealt with in courts were changing. The judge William Brennan was also concerned about the provision of freedoms in his writings during the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Some rules were being applied to deal with different cases. With this, therefore, there was no justice and fairness in judgment; hence, there arised the need for procedural doctrines, standards, and tests.
Apparently, the doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court to determine the situations or circumstances were the restrictions were to be placed on the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly posed a clear danger. This also became the standard test for cases in courts.
In summary, the United States Constitution is the supreme law that guides the operations of the country including its international relations. In addition, it has comprehensive regulations with clear guidelines and provisions that can help deal properly with the criminal cases in the society with an attempt to exercise justice.