Criminal Defenses and Criminal Punishments
Two common concepts in the criminal justice system are criminal defense and criminal punishment. Criminal defense refers to the strategic argument presented in court with the aim of challenging how valid or sufficient the evidence provided by the prosecution is. Criminal punishment is often meted out by criminal justice systems as a response or deterrent to crime. In modern U.S. law, common criminal punishments include monetary fines, community service, restitution of criminals, forfeiting property, confinement to jail, and death in criminal cases. This paper explores various aspects of criminal defense and criminal punishment including points involved in determining lawfulness of the use of force, differences between the castle doctrine and ‘stand your ground’ types of criminal defense, the role of double jeopardy in the trial system, features of the adversarial system, and the right to a speedy trial.
Key Points Involved in the Court Determining the Lawfulness of the Use of Force
The use of force and whether it is justified on various occasions are some of the most debated issues in criminal law. People are divided on what reasons explain the use of force by a civilian or a law enforcement officer in the act of preventing the occurrence of crime. In court, some of the key points involved or considered in determining the lawfulness of the use of force from the law enforcement perspective are the severity of the crime, the immediate threat presented by the suspect to law enforcement officers, and whether the suspect resisted arrest (Brody, Acker, & Logan, 2000). The level of objectivity inherent in the severity of the crime is that some crimes are severe and a threat to the community and only the use of force by law enforcement officers can help to prevent them. Thus, allowing law enforcers to use force in such situations is important as it prevents the spread of the crime’s impact on other members of the community. The level of objectivity inherent in the use of force when a suspect presents an immediate threat to officers or the public is that it is vital to protect them in the line of duty, as well as ensuring the safety of the public. The primary objective of using force when a suspect resists arrest or attempts to flee during an arrest is to ensure that justice is served to criminals and that those involved in crime are arrested and charged.
Fundamental Differences between Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground
The Castle doctrine is a type of criminal defense that allows or gives a homeowner the right to protect their home through the use of excessive force (Brody, Acker, & Logan, 2000). In most cases, a person who presents the Castle doctrine defense in a court of law is exonerated from any wrongdoing. On the other hand, stand-your-ground is a justification in a criminal case whereby defendants use force without retreating to defend and protect themselves and others from harm or threats (Pittell, 2014). The Castle doctrine is valid as it helps people to protect themselves in situations of danger, especially in their homes. It emphasizes the fact that one can take every action to counter any threat they face within the home. For instance, a person can use force in response to robbers or thugs and still be protected by the law. The stand-your-ground law is valid as it allows people to defend themselves from possible harm or threats targeted at them. An example is where individuals have the right to be in a place, such as a restaurant, but are threatened to leave the place. In such a situation, the individuals are protected by the law to use excessive force to repulse the threat. The significant difference is that the Castle doctrine is applicable in the home context when one is already inside and has to protect or defend themselves from external threat, whereas stand-your-ground is applicable outdoors.
Role Played by Double Jeopardy Clause within the Trial System
The double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from prosecuting an individual more than once for a similar crime committed. It also prohibits government authorities from giving multiple punishments to individuals for a single offense (Rudstein, 2005). Its primary objective is to protect a person or a defendant acquitted of criminal charges from being charged or tried again for similarcharges. The clause has helped in the elimination of instances whereby offenders’ punishments exceed their crime. The general level of fairness of double jeopardy to the defense is that there is the possibility of distress to the defendants when they are prosecuted severally for a similar crime. Also, it minimizes incidences of the manipulation of evidence by police officers who might believe that an acquitted person is guilty.
Features of the Adversarial System
Some of the critical features of the adversarial system are that each of the parties involved have the responsibility of presenting their cases before the court through legal representatives. Hence,he judge has to be impartial in their arbitration to ensure the trail is on the basis of evidence and procedure, and that rules of evidence and procedure are followed (Corrado, 2009). Also, the adversarial system provides that the burden of proof rests with the party making the allegation whereby the defendant maintains the presumption of innocence. The court has the right to carry out conviction of the accused without trial but based on his or her confessional statement. Moreover, a private litigant can settle their dispute outside the court through an agreement. The adversarial system is of great value to in U.S. criminal law system as it ensures the strict following of the procedural law, stresses the need to have lawyers for each party, emphasizes the preservation of privacy with the court, and giving the defendant the right to silence. The absence of such as system would lead to a miscarriage of justice as the courts would be influenced in decision-making.
The Right to a Speedy Trial
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlines the right to a speedy trial, which is one of the most critical aspects of the American criminal justice system. The right is essential as it reduces the chances of suspects interfering with evidence or disrupting case evidence (Singh, Singh, & Singh, 2015). Also, it saves time from the perspective of both parties. With a speedy trial, offenders are served justice and take responsibility for the crimes without delay whereas the victims of crime are served justice promptly. In a situation whereby a suspect goes through the trial process, their chances of interfering with any evidence by bribing law enforcement agencies are reduced.
The critical points involved or considered in determining the lawfulness of the use of force from the law enforcement perspective are the severity of the crime, the immediate threat presented by the suspect to law enforcement officers, and whether the suspect was resisting arrest. The Caste Doctrine and stand-your-ground laws facilitate self-defense. Whereas the Castle doctrine is applicable when one is inside their house, the stand-your-ground law is applicable outdoors. The double jeopardy clause protects a person or a defendant acquitted of criminal charges from being charged or tried again for the same charges. The adversarial system is of great value to U.S. criminal law system as it ensures the strict adherence of the procedural law. Besides, the right to speedy trial prevents possible interference or disruption of criminal evidence.
References
Brody, D. C., Acker, J. R., & Logan, W. A. (2000). Criminal law. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=2ipUSeStAzQC&pg=PA256&dq=Castle+doctrine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBsPrH44fdAhXmxoUKHSH1BnMQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=Castle%20doctrine&f=false
Corrado, M. L. (2009). The Future of Adversarial Systems: An Introduction to the Papers from the First Conference. NCJ Int’l L. & Com. Reg., 35, 285. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1902&context=ncilj
Pittell, H. (2014). ” Stand Your Ground” Laws and the Demand for Legal Fire Arms. Retrieved from https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/36335/Pittell_Thesis.pdf?sequence=2
Rudstein, D. S. (2005). A brief history of the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 14, 193. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73965739.pdf
Singh, T., Singh, R. K., & Singh, P. K. (2015). Right of ‘Speedy’ and ‘Fair’ Trial of accused: An overview. IJAR, 1(7), 618-620. Retrieved from http://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2015/vol1issue7/PartK/1-6-44.pdf