1 / 21

Lecture 6.5--criminal justice--rights of criminal suspects

Lecture 6.5--criminal justice--rights of criminal suspects. Growing crime rate since 1960s . Declining Crime since ‘93--why?. improved economy? get tough policies? mandatory minimums, “broken windows” better policing? changing attitudes? demographics? crack “fad” diminishing?

jovianne
Download Presentation

Lecture 6.5--criminal justice--rights of criminal suspects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 6.5--criminal justice--rights of criminal suspects

  2. Growing crime rate since 1960s

  3. Declining Crime since ‘93--why? • improved economy? • get tough policies? • mandatory minimums, “broken windows” • better policing? • changing attitudes? • demographics? • crack “fad” diminishing? • Legalized abortion?

  4. Counties differ—SM among the lowest

  5. A search warrant is: • Authorized by a judge on the basis of “probable cause” • specifies the place to be searched, a period of time in which the search will take place, and often the specific item sought.

  6. Police don’t need warrant when: • permission given • following an arrest, in the area in the immediate control of the arrested suspect • object is within plain view of police from a place they have a right to be • necessary to prevent harm to people or property

  7. “stop and frisk” • Police may “stop” (reasonable person feels not free to go) a citizen on grounds of “reasonable suspicion” • Police may then “pat down” citizen

  8. Rights of the Accused • Mapp v Ohio (‘61)--4th amend search n’seize • extending “exclusionary rule” to the states, and “fruits of the poisoned tree” • since then, “good faith rule”, “inevitable discovery” • Miranda v Arizona (‘64)--5th amend self-incrimination • must be advised of rights once “in custody, prior to interrogation” • since then, two-tier interviews, etc.

  9. Gideon v Wainwright (‘63)--6th amend right to counsel • Transcript: The COURT: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case. • state must provide attorney for the indigent facing incarceration • but not necessarily high quality defenses • in CA over 90% of felonies are plead out

  10. Hardening line in 80’s and 90’s • Fed and State mandatory minimum sentences • increased incarceration for drug offenses • especially by minorities, women, minor offenders CA

  11. Three strikes laws • 1994 CA prop 184 passed overwhelmingly, half the states followed • in CA: after two “serious” felonies, sentence doubles, third felony leads to 25-life • about 60% of CA’s 7000 3 strikers for “non-serious” 3rd offense • USSC said not cruel and unusual--state has right to punish a pattern of crime • 2004 CA ballot initiative to require 3rd strike to be violent or serious lost

  12. A vast social experiment: the carceral state • US prison population grows 600% in past 30 years, world’s largest • California, much the same • incarceration rate about average of other states • but much higher recidivism rate

  13. States pull back due to expense, under Bush, Feds dig in • many states, including CA have retreated from mandatory minimums, but U.S. Attorney General is still calling for max penalties

  14. California’s experiment with drug courts and Prop 36 • 1990s CA began diverting some non-violent drug offenders to courts offering treatment • 2000 Prop 36 created expanded additional program • 30,000 diverted per year, saving CA money, studies have shown more successful than prison at combating recidivism

  15. Getting smart(er) on crime?

  16. juvenile justice • Most states create separate system for juveniles in early 20th century • juveniles typically face “hearings” not trials, until 1960’s, received few adult protections • 1990’s: growth in violent juvenile crime, and movement to try juveniles as adults--in CA, prop 21 passed in 2000

  17. CYA cages--http://www.californiaconnected.org/wp/archives/194

  18. VIII Amendment--Capital Punishment • 1972 CA state Supreme Ct finds death penalty a violation of state constitution • 1977-78 voters of California amend constitution to allow death penalty • 1986 Rose Bird and two other CA supreme court justices lose their seats—largely over dp

  19. Recent trend in USSC and nationally • Protected categories reflecting “national consensus of evolving standards”: • mentally retarded (2002) • minors under age 18 at time of crime (2003) • Two states have recently found it a violation of state constitution

  20. DP in CA • Since reinstatement, 13 executions • Biggest death row in U.S. • But rate of new death sentences slowing dramatically

  21. Method of execution • most states with dp now offer lethal injection as sole or primary method, CA offers it as a choice • Recently: U.S. District Ct: must be applied humanely

More Related