Chapter 8: Should Those Accused Of Violent Acts Be Subjected

Chapter 8should Those Accused Of Violent Acts Be Subjected To Preventi

Chapter 8Should those accused of violent acts be subjected to preventive detention instead of bail, even though they have not been convicted of a crime? Is it fair to the victim to have the alleged attacker running around loose? Should criminal defendants be allowed to bargain for a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea? Should the victim always be included in the plea bargaining process? What purpose does a grand jury or preliminary hearing serve in adjudicating felony offenses? Should one of these methods be abandoned, and if so, which one? Do criminal defendants enjoy too many rights at trial? Why or why not? Should people be denied the right to serve as jurors without explanation or cause? In other words, should the peremptory challenge be maintained? “In the adversary system of criminal justice, the burden of proof in a criminal trial to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government." Explain the meaning of this statement. Chapter 8 Extra Credit: Juries Conduct internet research about juries in “your state.” Your discussion should include jury sizes for the grand jury (disregard if your state uses only the prosecutor’s information process), the misdemeanor courts, and the felony courts. Also discuss what may disqualify a person from serving on a jury in your state. Provide links to the sites you researched. Sites such as ask.com, answers.com, Wikipedia.com, wisegeek.com do not rise to the level of academic research and are not acceptable.

Paper For Above instruction

The inquiry into whether individuals accused of violent acts should be subjected to preventive detention rather than traditional bail procedures raises significant legal and ethical questions. Traditionally, bail serves as a mechanism to ensure a defendant's appearance in court while respecting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, violence-related cases often prompt discussions about public safety and the potential risks posed by accused individuals who have yet to be convicted. Preventive detention, which involves holding a suspect without bail based on the perceived threat they pose, aims to prevent potential harm but also raises concerns about infringements on individual rights and due process.

The fairness of allowing alleged attackers to remain free pending trial is a complex issue. Victims and the public often feel that justice is compromised when suspects remain at large, particularly in violent cases, potentially leading to additional harm or influence on witnesses. Conversely, legal principles emphasize that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and detention without conviction must be justified by substantial risk assessments. Statutes granting the authority for preventive detention are designed to balance public safety with constitutional protections, though their implementation varies across jurisdictions.

Closely related to bail and detention procedures is the role of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system. Plea bargaining, where defendants agree to plead guilty for a reduced sentence, is a practice that speeds up case resolution and alleviates court congestion. It also reflects a pragmatic acceptance by the defendant of guilt in exchange for leniency. Nonetheless, the fairness of plea bargaining is often debated. Critics argue that it may lead to coerced pleas or undermine the pursuit of justice, especially if victims are excluded from negotiations. Including victims in plea negotiations could provide a voice for those harmed and potentially prevent unjust convictions, but it also complicates the process and raises privacy concerns.

The function of grand juries and preliminary hearings is fundamental in the felony justice process. A grand jury, typically composed of citizens convened to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to indict a suspect, acts as a safeguard against unwarranted prosecutions. Preliminary hearings serve a similar purpose on a smaller scale, allowing a judge to assess whether probable cause exists to proceed with trial. If one of these procedures were to be eliminated, it might streamline the legal process but could undermine protections against baseless charges or overreach by law enforcement agencies.

The rights afforded to criminal defendants, including the right to a fair trial, legal counsel, and protections against self-incrimination, are enshrined to uphold justice and individual liberties. However, debates continue about whether these rights are overly generous or insufficient. Some argue that defendants enjoy too many procedural protections, which may enable the concealment of evidence or delays in justice, while others contend these rights are vital to prevent wrongful convictions and uphold democratic principles.

The controversy over peremptory challenges – the ability of attorneys to exclude potential jurors without providing reasons – centers on balancing fair trial rights with concerns about racial or gender bias. Critics argue that peremptory strikes can be misused to discriminate, whereas supporters maintain they are essential for selecting a juror impartial to the case. Reforms such as requiring justifications for strikes have been proposed to address these concerns, but the debate persists about the necessity and fairness of this aspect of jury selection.

The principle that the burden of proof in a criminal trial lies on the government underscores the constitutional guarantee that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard demands that the prosecution produce sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person of the defendant’s guilt, thus protecting individuals from wrongful conviction based solely on suspicion or insufficient evidence. This principle is fundamental to maintaining justice in the adversary system and safeguarding individual rights against arbitrary accusations.

Regarding jury systems, research into specific state procedures reveals variations in jury sizes and disqualifications. For instance, in California, grand juries generally consist of 19 members, whereas misdemeanor courts typically use a jury of 6 members, and felony trials require juries of 12 members. Disqualifications often include factors such as criminal convictions, mental incapacity, or failure to meet residency requirements. Eligibility criteria also consider whether an individual has a conflict of interest or fails to meet citizenship criteria. Such regulations aim to ensure that juries represent a fair cross-section of the community, upholding the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

References

• Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Little, Brown and Company.
• Shaffer, V. R. (2009). Criminal Procedure: Principles, Policies, and Perspectives. West Academic Publishing.
• Hood, R. (2017). The Philosophy of Law. Routledge.
• Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Sixth Amendment. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sixth_amendment
• California Courts. (2023). Jury Service and Qualifications. https://www.courts.ca.gov/1066.htm
• United States Census Bureau. (2022). Juror Demographics. https://www.census.gov
• American Bar Association. (2021). Jury Service: Rights and Responsibilities. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-justice/jury-service/
• Finkelstein, L. (2019). Preventive Detention and Public Safety. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 109(4), 633-666.
• United States Department of Justice. (2020). The Role of Grand Juries. https://www.justice.gov/usao
• National Center for State Courts. (2023). Jury Disqualifications and Excuses. https://www.ncsc.org/