Thread: Is the Justice System Failing?

The problem is, that the judicial system is supposed to be devoid of politics all together, judges are supposed to sit in judgment of the entire case without reference, or reliance upon their personal feelings. There is no way to really do this, we are all human beings, and the officers of the court myself included are no different. Nevertheless, I do believe that our Criminal Justice system is one of the better ones in the world. And certainly one of the best that we have, historically speaking. As I mentioned in a previous post, could you imagine an accusatory system, as opposed to one without the right to representation? Well, that's the sort of system that existed in the early part of America's History. That's how such gruesome and terrible outcomes, such as the Salem Witch Trials happened. The United States Constitution created the right to not only face your accused, but the right to have an attorney. Let's step back in time, to a period before the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 1966. If you've ever watched any of the lawyer shows on television, such as Law Order, I'm sure you remember the police always informing the suspect You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, then one shall be provided for you. In a nutshell, those are the Miranda warnings, informing the suspect that they have the right to remain silent, that any and all interrogation by the police must stop, once the suspect requests an attorney. A line up cannot go forward, without an attorney present. etc, etc. One of the lesser known aspects of the Miranda case, was that it also served to prevent and halt abusive interrogation practices, including but not limited to 1 Using the lit end of a cigarette to force a confession from the accused 2 Sleep deprivation of the accused, for a period of forty-eight hours 3 Telling the accused that heshe cannot have access to an attorney until after they confess. The facts of the Miranda case are as follows. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix police department. The arrest was based on purely circumstantial evidence linking Miranda to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl some ten days earlier. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me. Yet, at no time during this process, was Miranda informed of his right to counsel, and he was never advised of his right to remain silent, or that his statements during the interrogation would be used agianst him before being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he already gave orally. Of course, at trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession into evidence against him, his court-appointed lawyer in a role much similar to that played by me, as I am a court appointed attorney for the indigent, and fight tooth and nail for them, Alvin Moore, objected because the confession could not truly have been coluntary, and should be excluded. Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping, sentenced to thirty years imprisonment on EACH charge, with the sentences to run concurrently meaning sixty years. Moore appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, on the grounds that Miranda's confession was not fully coluntary and should never have been admitted into the court proceedings. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's earlier decision to admit the confession. In affirming, the Arizona Supreme Court emphazed heavily the fact that Miranda an immigrant from Mexico, never specifically requested an attorney. Ultimately, it was the Supreme Court of the United States which decided this issue, and ensured that future criminal defendants would have some protections. It also led to a reduction of many of the aforementioned police abuses which occurred with respect to interrogation tactics. It ties in with the Civil Rights movement which was on-going at the time. And, I for one, have managed to get several cases thrown out due to a law enforcement officer failing to administer the Miranda Rights. These rights were always available to criminal defendants, via the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, respectively. However, many people are not aware of their rights, and law enforcement relied upon this lack of knowledge. However, it was our justice system that stepped in to correct this problem. Is it perfect? By all means, no. I regularly battle unreasonable demands by Prosecutors, and unreasonable sentences, such as the one I mentioned earlier about that young woman who survived Hurricane Katrina, and suffered a financial set back, and was caught stealing food for her adopted child. Yes, what she did was wrong. However, she had no prior criminal record, and the sort of punishment leveled against her was wrong. On the other hand, when she was arrested, she opted to have an attorney, and so I was able to step in, ensuring that a confession they attempted to root out of her was excluded, as per Miranda. No, the system isn't fair. That being said, it is a damn sight better than it was two-hundred years ago, and it's continuing to evolve, and in most cases for the better. Without it, the authorities could swoop in, and make arrests without any accountability whatsoever. It is always easy to hate those whom appear guilty on the surface. But remember, it is easy to also become accused of doing something wrong. For example, I had a client who had prescription medication from his doctor, in a Ziploc baggy, because he didn't wish to carry his prescription pill bottles with him, wherever he went. The police pulled him over, for a burned out tail-light,what we call a pretextual stop, noticed the baggy of pills in the cup holder, tested the pills, and because he was unable to provide a copy of his doctor's prescription he was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance. The police attempted to force him to confess to unlawful possession of controlled substance, with intent to distribute. They arrested him, and held him for a period of forty-eight hours. I was able to track down his doctor, get a copy of the prescription, as well as photographs of the bottle, and got the case dismissed. However, if he was never informed of his right to an attorney, I could have never done any of those things for him. Worse yet, he had no money to afford me. I was appointed, and I still went the extra mile for him. I know I may seem overly critical in my response here. However, there are many instances within the Justice system, that the general public simply does not see, because it is not covered by the media. We require such a strong standard of proof for the prosecution, in order to prevent cases like my client with his legally prescribed medication, turning into convictions. The state possesses all of the funding necessary to pursue people, thus, it is only right that they are required to meet the highest standards, since we are talking about significant amounts of time for incarceration. Even today, there are instances of wrongful incarceration. This case represents a clear cut example of what I'm talking about. I often go the extra step that my colleagues do not go through. I check up on former clients, after the fact, to ensure that they are not languishing in jail, when they shouldn't be. Yes, the system has its short comings, but I don't think it is nearly as bad, when it comes to allowing guilty people to go free, as many claim. Simply because the vast majority of cases that even go to court, result in convictions. Also, it makes defense attorneys, such as myself's, jobs increasingly difficult, when we are already fighting an uphill battle with the jury, when it is claimed that the system merely lets the guilty walk away scott free. I know it's a frustrating issue. I know we all want to see justice served, but there is the other side of the system, which simply isn't displayed to the public all that often.