American courts investigate and penalize law offenders through various legal channels entrenched in the constitution. How criminal justice is dispensed varies from one country to another depending on the judicial structures and the nature of crimes stipulated in the law. Criminal justice is a rigorous procedure that is characterized by numerous stages starting with a criminal examination of an offense and concluding with either freeing or punishing a suspected criminal. This process revolves around rules and verdicts. In the USA, the courts have the constitutional mandate to execute criminal justice. “Sources of rules in judicial processes include the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, state constitutions, the U.S. Code, state codes, court decisions, federal rules of criminal procedure, state rules of criminal procedure, and department and agency rules and regulations,” (Carp 12-13). This paper discusses the practice of judicial justice with specific reference to the USA judicial system. A criminal justice proceeding primarily begins with an investigation of an alleged offense. Law enforcement officers are entrusted with gathering the necessary information that assists in identifying and arresting an individual. Various mechanisms can be applied to get information. For example, investigative checks can be made on an individual’s property. Once the investigators have gathered substantial information that links an individual to an offense, they arrest him. An arrest is whereby an individual is brought under the custody of law enforcement officials until court proceedings commence. “Probable cause is a major law requirement for taking a person into custody, and it implies that there is a proper connection between a particular individual and a given offense” (Sheppard and Farnsworth 56). The arraignment of the lawbreaker then takes place in court. At this point, the suspected lawbreaker can either accept or deny having committed the alleged offense. If the suspect pleas he or she is innocent, the court identifies a suitable date to further the case further. An important development at this level is the fact that a suspect can be temporarily freed on bond depending on the nature of the offense. In circumstances, the bond may be terminated if the suspect is not cooperating (Sheppard and Farnsworth 67-89). After arraignment, the suspect attends a first-round hearing session in court. The judge administering the case can decide to either terminate or proceed with the hearings depending on the amount of evidence presented by the persecutor. If the evidence is seriously inconsistent, the suspect can easily be pardoned. On other hand, the availability of reliable data automatically leads to a grand jury hearing. This is where the suspect is thoroughly grilled with the hope of linking him or her to a given offense. Failure of the suspect to convince the jury that he or she did not break a given law often culminates in the sentencing stage. If the court deems a suspect responsible for a mistake, he or she is penalized depending on the degree of the mistake committed. Several modes of punishment can be applied to correct the offender. For example, a gui