Week 6

week6.docx

525 d1 300 words

1. Chapter 7 of your textbook describes legal training for lawyers and judges as being either unified or specialized. For example, in the United States, law school graduates may practice any type of law without additional training, whereas law graduates in many European countries must choose a specific area of law - including the judiciary - in which they will specialize and receive additional training.

Respond to the following:

· Would the American criminal justice system benefit from the more specialized training approach to becoming a prosecutor, defense attorney, or judge?

· Why or why not?

2. While discussing the concept of presumption of innocence, the note was made of a comparative scholar reportedly saying that if he were innocent, he would prefer to be tried in a civil law court, but if he were guilty, he would rather be tried by a common law court.

Discuss the following questions:

· On what basis could someone make such a statement?

· Do you agree or disagree that the civil legal tradition protects the innocent more, whereas the common legal tradition provides more protection to the guilty?

· Why or why not?

Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470

525 dropbox

1. View the " You Be The Judge documentary " (1:01:30) on YouTube of typical cases in England and Wales and decide what sentence you would assign to each. You will need to pause at the end of each case, decide on the sentence, and then continue to see how your sentence compares with the sentence passed in this realistic simulation of the sentencing process.

1. Write at least one full paragraph for each case that compares your sentence to the one imposed. Explain why you think there were differences or similarities in the sentences.

2. Review the page that details China’s Trial System . Scroll down to the section titled “The Fundamentals of China’s Judicial System,” where you will find information about open trials and, just below that section, the defense system.

1. Write a paragraph explaining the types of cases that are not open to the public.

2. Write another paragraph that explains who is eligible to defend the accused.

Dropbox assignments are between 300-500 words and written in the APA format. Submissions are not to exceed 550 words.

525 research will attach previous paper

Research Paper: Introductory and Concluding Paragraphs.

Incorporate the feedback from your instructor on the previously submitted excerpt and include the introduction and concluding paragraphs for your research paper.

You may include an abstract or any additional writing with this submission if you would like instructor feedback, but it will not be a part of the graded portion of this assignment.

530 d1 350 words

This week’s readings focus on the legalities involved in law enforcement and criminal justice employment drug testing and on some of the less often covered issues of recreational drug use by law enforcement officials. According to the readings, what technical issues are involved in drug testing of officers and what is their efficacy? Be detailed in your response.

https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week6

What were some of the 4th Amendment issues involved in drug testing officers, and how have courts ruled on these issues? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.

Finally, how might a union or collective-bargaining complicate drug testing and why? Discuss fully and consider the readings from the week. Outside research will also be helpful here.

530 d2 350 words

Read the articles on religious expression in law enforcement or criminal justice employment and search for other scholarly articles on religious freedom and protections for law enforcement officers and criminal justice professionals.

What are some of the potential areas of conflict? What is the current state of law regarding these issues? Apply law to facts and discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.

Share some areas of conflict you have encountered in your own career, if applicable.

https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week6

Case Analysis Paper 2

In Groff v. DeJoy (2023), the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required that the United States Post Office that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. As this case discusses a public employer, also consider any ramifications for other public employers, such as law enforcement agencies.

For each paper, write 750 – 1000 words of analysis. This is about three to four pages in length, not counting cover or reference pages.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf

ResearchPaper-Excerpt.docx

Comparative Criminal Justice Systems and Due Process

Due Process, Procedural Fairness, and Emerging Challenges in Comparative Criminal Justice

The principle of due process in the context of criminal justice is a bedrock principle of every democratic system for two reasons: First, it guarantees that a person is not subjected to arbitrary action by the government, and second, it helps to build confidence in the legal system. The UK and EU value ‘fairness, accountability and the rule of law’, but have decided on different interpretations in the way in which due process protections are implemented in practice. The differences are noticeable about pre-trial detention procedures, search and seizure, procedural fairness, and the increasing digitization of criminal justice.

Furthermore, procedural fairness continues to be one of the essential elements of due process since it has a significant impact on public legitimacy and trust in legal processes. Procedural justice is more than just compliance with legal procedures (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022). It also covers issues like fairness, transparency, and non-bias of decision-making processes. The authors contend that structural inequalities and imbalances can disempower public trust in a decision, even if formal procedures are done correctly. There has been a growing emphasis in the United Kingdom and the EU on transparency and accountability in attempts to reinforce procedural fairness in both Member States and the United Kingdom. But the ways in which these protections are given have a distinct effect on countries where their legal traditions differ. Much of the UK law, however, is derived from common law and precedent, whereas in many EU jurisdictions, legality is not codified, and national human rights protection is not necessarily equivalent to that of the EU.

Another area where due process is an issue is pre-trial detention. The rights of accused persons may be seriously impacted as decisions on detention are made prior to determining guilt in court. Dhami and van den Brink (2022) found significant differences in how detention is used in practice in different jurisdictions and how subjective assessments of the child play a greater part than objective laws in the decision-making process. These inconsistencies give rise to suspicions over the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the unequal treatment in the eyes of the law. A key concern of European jurisdictions is proportionality and necessity, as seen in the assessment of detention; a commitment to human rights protection has been seen in many European jurisdictions.

Due process protections are again illustrated in the context of criminal investigations, where police authorities exercise their own power. Effective law enforcement and prevention of abuse of power are akin to a fine line for criminal investigations. Amagnya (2022) discussed police prosecutions and found that there were issues about instances involving overlapping roles between the police and prosecutors. Poorly defined duties between the investigative and prosecutive agencies may create a risk of compromise of the fairness of the procedure. The separation of police and prosecution in the United Kingdom and most of the European Union jurisdictions is greater than in most other jurisdictions, but there is a continuing debate about issues of discretion, bias, and accountability. A separation of investigative and prosecutive functions is a valuable protection against the possibility of miscarriage of justice and unfair procedure.

As technology has advanced and digital evidence has become a greater issue, search and seizure protections are becoming ever more complex. Traditional legal rules pertaining to search were created mostly with respect to tangible items and physical evidence. Today, however, with the rise of electronic communications, cloud storage, and data that spans several jurisdictions, criminal investigations can become an electronic game. But, in today's world, with electronic communication, cloud storage systems, and data in several jurisdictions, the task of investigation may be an electronic game. In the case of cross-border investigations, Casino et al. (2022) stated that most often, there are law-related obstacles, such as divergent state laws, data access regulations, and privacy laws. The issues are such that a compromise between privacy and constitutional protection and the investigative needs is required between legal system provisions.

The EU has demonstrated more restrictive views on 'uneditable' evidence in the context of illegally obtained evidence. Panzavolta & Maes (2022) believe the use of such exclusionary rules can foster the respect of due process because they make illegal searches and violations of individual rights undesirable and less likely. The U.K. has a more liberal history of granting admissibility to evidence. This difference is indicative of the civil law-common law distinction in general. Both operate on the principle of equality, but the European Union generally leans towards stability when it comes to the rights granted, whereas the U.K. leans towards judicial discretion.

Perhaps the greatest future threat to the protection of due process arises from emerging technologies. AI is being increasingly adopted to forecast crime events, to make risk assessments, and to design crime prevention strategies. These tools have the promise of developing resource optimization and efficiency, but also present dangers of transparency and accountability. As with many algorithmic systems, Blount (2022) cautions, the algorithm is a “black box,” and it can be hard for defendants and lawyers to understand “how [such] decisions are made.” Such transparency may jeopardize the rights of due process and heighten the possibility of discriminatory outcomes occurring. Indeed, Zilka et al. (2022) highlight the necessity of oversight and governance to hold algorithmic decision-making to account and make it comprehensible. The EU seems to have materially undertaken a more restrictive regime with greater emphasis on human rights' protections, whereas the United Kingdom has maintained a moderate approach, that is, with greater emphasis on requirements for innovation-related oversight.

Overall, there is a similarity that both the UK and the EU have adhered to due process in the criminal justice system and the rule of law. They have some differences in how they put or may put into practice procedural safeguards, evidence control, and new technology issues. Both will constantly have to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges thrown at them by the growth of AI, digital evidence, and transnational crime, but retain the very principles of democratic justice that are the starting point of our rights.

References

Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 146135572210895. https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562

Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice. AI & SOCIETY, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z

Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014

Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 136571272210883. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328

Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice. Theoretical Criminology, 26(3), 136248062110566. https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680

Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study. Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200