Justice is not always just

February 25, 2010

By Sarah Sheafer
<ssheafer@hilite.org> 

Guilty or innocent? This appears to be a straightforward question, but in fact, it is the exact opposite.

As I grow older and I continue to learn more about the judicial system, I am struck by the growing areas of gray that lie between the ideas of guilt and innocence. Nothing ever seems to be black and white within the system.

When I was in AP Government last semester, I read a book titled Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice by Harold J. Rothwax, former New York state Supreme Court judge. In the book, Rothwax explains that criminals and their defense attorneys use complex and often confusing laws to escape conviction.

Although I agree with the concept “innocent until proven guilty,” I can’t help but feel frustrated with the current system. If the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were intended to protect the innocent, then why are criminals roaming free? Instead of protecting the innocent, these rights are actually harming them.

For example, the Miranda rights are intended to protect a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination. If that case was intended to prevent innocent people from being forced to plead guilty, then why should this pose a problem? Before Miranda came before the Supreme Court, police stations frequently used interrogation as a method of finding the truth. That has all changed. Police officers now find it more difficult to convict criminals. In some cases, criminals willingly admit they are guilty before a police officer even speaks to them, but because they were not told of their Miranda rights prior, their confessions get disregarded.

Another aspect of the criminal justice system that has been misconstrued deals with discovery rules. Although these rules were originally intended to aid in the search for truth, in reality, they actually hinder the process. These statutes require the prosecution to turn over all of its files and evidence to the defendant’s attorney; however, in most jurisdictions, the defendant doesn’t have to do the same. This is because the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty, but the defendant doesn’t have to necessarily prove his innocence. Because of this, the defense can build a case around refuting the evidence. In a typical scene, the defense can shift from saying, “I wasn’t there,” to, “Okay, I was there, but it was self-defense,” to, “Okay, I did it, but I was crazy,” based on what evidence the prosecution turns over.

As I continued to read Rothwax’s work, I became frustrated with how lawyers grasped at anything to fog the issues and true facts. Perhaps the law I found most frustrating dealt with the Mappruling. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against illegal searches and seizures, but nowhere does it say exclusion of evidence is the remedy for violation. However, the Mapp ruling changed the meaning of the amendment when it decided that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded. Sometimes criminals escape sentence because the evidence obtained violated the Fourth Amendment and was disregarded.

I understand that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are crucial in protecting the innocent, but I can’t stop myself from feeling the frustration of how these rights become misinterpreted to mean something else. Justice is meant to discover the truth, not misconstrue it. Unfortunately, justice is not always just.

Updated by perspectives · Filed Under Perspectives 

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

July 2010
M T W T F S S
« May    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
View in: Mobile | Standard