Crime Control

Is it possible to effectively control crime in our society while at the same time protecting the rights of individuals from infringement by the government?

Crime control according to this context is the different from due process or protection of individuals rights from infringement. They are different ideals of criminal justice and one can term them as being extremes or continuum. The role the crime control bodies is getting criminal and ensuring they are brought into justice thus protecting the innocent (Kenneth, 2001). The due process is one of the criminal justice obstacle course whereby you have to keep going through the legal obstacles so that at the end convict are the law offenders. For instance, in the U.S, the police rely on the crime control while the courts lean towards the due process. The processes cause tension from time to time between the courts and the police.

Both appear to be having potential pitfalls and the dangers which could threaten the security and safety of individual’s freedom that made the country beacon stability and the world’s freedom. The liberal proponents of the process model believing that the crime control model usually protects the guilty at expense of the individuals who are law abiding.  Considering the strengths and weaknesses of the models experts support a system whereby justice represents crime control through the use of due process. The method provides moderate approach which protects citizen’s freedom and also guards the society from criminal element intended to do the harm (Kenneth, 2001).

What impact has the exclusionary rule had on the protection of individual rights?

The exclusionary rule is known as the rule stating that evidence that is illegally obtained, is most probably not be used in a trial, even in the event of defendants conviction. Also In the judicial system of America, the exclusionary rule is considered to be an issue that is highly contentious. Consistently the Supreme Court has interpreted and re-interpreted this rule. Since 1961, “good faith exception”   has been created by the court to the rule allowing evidence found “in good faith “be used in a trial. In this rule illegal evidence is allowed in trial and separately punishes the officers who came up with illegal evidence. This rule is effective in maximizing the constitutional liberty of the defendant (Frank, 1999).

The exclusionary rule tampers all police officers` incentive involved in obtaining illegal police evidence. It prohibits the evidence found against the constitutional rights of a defendant. In an event that a police officer violates the right of a defendant in search of evidence, it is considered a waste of time (Frank, 1999). Elimination of such misconduct is effectively managed by this rule. This rule greatly respects the constitutional rights. The U.S. constitution is based largely on rights.

The fourth amendment of the bill of rights support people`s right on security of their house, persons, and effects against seizures and searches that are unreasonable should not be infringed. The argument against the exclusionary rule allows one be deprived of property, life or liberty in absence of complete respect for the supposedly guaranteed rights in the constitution. Ignoring the exclusionary rule is like ignoring individual liberties assured by the laws of the land that is supreme (Winter 1995). This rule is the best in respecting these rights.

What did Benjamin Franklin mean when he said, “A people who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.” Do you agree with him? Why or why not

He meant that security and freedom go hand in hand and there is no security without freedom. Also, for freedom to be meaningful in the society liberty must be there. I do agree with him for however makes his liberty secure is also secure (winter 1995).

People also viewed:

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROVERBS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADMINISTRATOR CHALLENGES