Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights | Criminal Justice

Preview (5 of 15 Pages)

100%

Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights - Page 1 preview image

Loading page ...

Study GuideCriminal JusƟce–Defendants' Rights1. The PosƩrial ProcessOnce a jury finds a defendantguilty, the trial is not completely over. Several important steps follow.These steps focus on sentencing, possible challenges to theverdict, and the defendant’s future withinthe justice system. Let’s walk through this process in a clear and student-friendly way.1.1 PosƩrial MoƟons: Asking for a New TrialAfter a guilty verdict, the defense has the right to request anew trial. This request is called aposttrialmotion.If the trial judge agrees that something went wrong during the trial—such as a serious legal mistake—the judge may grant the motion. When this happens, the original verdict is set aside, and the case istried again from the beginning.1.2 Presentence InvesƟgaƟon: Learning About the DefendantBefore sentencing takes place, aprobation officerprepares apresentence investigation. Thisinvestigation looks closely at the defendant’s background and situation.It includes:•The current offense•Past criminal history•Education level•Employment record•Personal and family issues•Chances for rehabilitationAll of this information is written into apresentence report. The report also recommends a sentence.Judges rely heavily on this report when deciding how to sentence the defendant.

Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights - Page 2 preview image

Loading page ...

Study GuideThese reports are useful beyond sentencing. They help:•Probation and parole officers plan supervision and rehabilitation•Prison officials classify inmates and assign programs•Parole boards decide whether an inmate should be released1.3 VicƟm Impact Statements: Giving VicƟms a VoiceIn most states, crime victims are allowed to submitvictim impact statementsbefore sentencing.These statements explain how the crime affected their lives emotionally, physically, or financially. In afew states, victims can even speak directly to the judge in court.Prosecutors often support victim impact statements because they allow victims to participate in thejustice process. However, some legal experts raise concerns. They argue that:1.Criminal trials should focus on justice for society as a whole, not personal revenge.2.Sentences might be influenced by how sympathetic a victim seems, rather than by howserious the crime actually was.1.4 The Sentencing Hearing: Deciding the PunishmentAt thesentencing hearing, both the prosecution and the defense present arguments about what thesentence should be. These arguments are usually based on the presentence report.Defendants have limited rights at this stage, but two are especially important:•TheSixth Amendment rightto have an attorney present•Theright of allocation, which allows the defendant to speak directly to the judge before thesentence is imposedThis givesdefendants a chance to express remorse, explain their actions, or ask for leniency.1.5 What Influences a Judge’s Sentencing Decision?Judges typically focus on two main factors:1.The seriousness of the crime

Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights - Page 3 preview image

Loading page ...

Study Guide2.Aggravating or mitigating circumstancesIn general, more serious crimes receive harsher sentences. Aggravating factors (like using a weapon)can increase punishment, while mitigating factors (like lack of prior offenses) may reduce it.1.6 Concurrent vs. ConsecuƟve Sentences: How Time Is ServedSometimes a defendant is convicted ofmultiple crimes. In these cases, the judge decides how thesentences will be served.•Concurrent sentencesmean the defendant serves all sentences at the same time.•Consecutive sentencesmean the defendant serves one sentence after another.This decision can greatly affect how long a person stays in prison.1.7 Appeals: Challenging Legal MistakesAnappealis a request for a higher court to review the case. It argues that legal or procedural errorsoccurred during the investigation, arrest, or trial.Important points about appeals:•Appeals focus onquestions of law or procedure, not guilt or innocence.•Common claims include improper evidence or incorrect courtroom rulings.•Neither state nor federal governments can appeal anot guiltyverdict (an acquittal).1.8 What Can an Appellate Court Do?An appellate court has several options:•Affirmthe lower court’s decision (uphold the conviction)•Reversethe decision (overturn the conviction)About20 percentof appeals result in overturned convictions.If the court finds aharmless error—a minor mistake that did not affect the outcome—it still upholdsthe conviction. But if the court finds a serious error that violates important constitutional rights, itreverses the decision.

Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights - Page 4 preview image

Loading page ...

Study GuideWhen a conviction is reversed, the defendant is not automatically freed. Instead, the case is sent backto the trial court for anew trial. The prosecutor then decides whether to retry the case. This doesnotviolate double jeopardy, because legally, the first trial no longer counts.Sometimes the appellate court allows a new trial but rules that certain evidence cannot be used againif it was improperly admitted the first time.2. Should Plea Bargaining Be Abolished?Plea bargainingis one of the most debated practices in the criminal justice system. It plays a majorrole in how cases are resolved, but many people disagree about whether it helps or harms justice. Tounderstand this debate, it’s important to look at both sides.2.1 Arguments for Abolishing Plea BargainingThose who want to eliminate plea bargaining focus on concerns aboutfairness, rights, and justice.First, critics argue that plea bargaining isunfair to defendants. When a defendant accepts a pleadeal, they give up important rights—most notably theright to a trial by jury. This can pressureindividuals into accepting a deal rather than fully defending themselves in court.Second, opponents claim that plea bargaining allowscriminals to avoid full responsibilityfor theiractions. By accepting a lesser charge or lighter sentence, offenders may receive punishments that donot truly match the seriousness of their crimes. This can weaken public trust and respect for thejustice system.Another concern is that plea bargaining can lead tounjustly lenient sentences. When offendersreceive reduced punishment in exchange for pleading guilty, the final sentence may be too light giventhe harm caused by the crime.Finally, critics worry about the risk ofwrongful guilty pleas. Some innocent people may plead guiltysimply to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence at trial, even if they did not commit the crime.2.2 Arguments Against Abolishing Plea BargainingSupporters of plea bargaining emphasize itspractical advantages.

Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights - Page 5 preview image

Loading page ...

Study GuideOne key benefit is flexibility. Plea bargaining allows judges and prosecutors toindividualizepunishment, tailoring sentences to the specific circumstances of each case. This can sometimeslead to fairer and less severe outcomes.Supporters also argue that plea bargaining is anadministrative necessity. Without it, courts wouldbe overwhelmed by the sheer number of cases going to trial. This would slow down the justiceprocess and create major delays.In addition, plea bargainingsaves time and money. Trials are expensive and time-consuming foreveryone involved—the prosecution, the courts, and the defendant. Resolving cases through pleadeals reduces these costs and helps the system run more efficiently.2.3 EvaluaƟng Plea BargainingBecause of its clear practical benefits, most experts agree that plea bargaining isunlikely to beabolished anytime soon. While it can introduce some unfairness into the justice process, manybelieve these problems are balanced by the advantages it provides to both the state and defendants.At present, the general consensus is that plea bargaining—despite its flaws—remains an essentialpart of the criminal justice system.3. Introducing Defendants’ RightsIn the famous caseThe People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995), boththe prosecution and the defense claimed they were engaged in a “search for the truth.” Prosecutorsargued that they were trying to uncover the truth, while the defense said prosecutors were actuallyblocking it. This raises an important question:Were both sides focused more on winning the casethan on finding the truth?This question helps introduce a larger idea about how the criminal justice system works.3.1 More Than Just Finding the TruthAccording to Harvard law professorAlan Dershowitz, criminal courts are designed to serveseveralgoals, not just one.The first goal isseeking the truth—figuring out whether the defendant actually committed the crime.This is clearly important, but it is not the system’s onlyconcern.

Preview Mode

This document has 15 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Report

Criminal Justice - Defendants' Rights

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

Criminal Justice - The Juvenile Justice System

Criminal Justice - The Criminal Justice System

Criminal Justice - Sentencing

Criminal Justice - Prosecutors

Criminal Justice - Prisons and Prisoners' Rights

Criminal Justice - Police Problems

Criminal Justice - Police Powers and Citizens' Rig

Criminal Justice - Police Function

Criminal Justice - Development of the American Pol

Criminal Justice - Defense Attorneys

Company

Explore

Study Tools