Weakness's of the U.S Criminal Justice System?

Question

i gotta do an essay on this...

"Write an essay discussing the weakness of the US criminal justice system. What do you suggest should be done to improve the justice system to be fair, firm but compassionate, and truly color-blind?"

Answer 1

the legal journals shows how a country did away with the jury system after much abuse ie singapore. besides the jury its the mistrust between the various components of law enforcement.  the judicial sys dont trust the enforcment system ie police.  there is suspicion on both sides.  police does not hv a good reputation of being straight and honest hence the intricate laws of search warrants etc.  imagine finding the evidence and yet unable to use it as the search was not legal.  how ridiculous.  criminals hv time to get rid of the evidence.  to each his own.  the rivalry between the various law enforcment agencies also to blame.  to each his own - they only look after their own selves.  hence the crime remains unrequited.  

look at the british or european legal / law enf system and u can see the diff.

so u write what is good there that can be applied here.  

corruption too.  which is not seen in the public eye.  as there is little publicity on such matters.  when politicians get involved, it gets messy and police do compromise.  

gun laws too.  nRA is so powerful a  lobby that they will not allow changes to take place.  

its also gender / color bias - how to get rid of such age old prejudice - its education and changing pple's minds and attitudes. this is complicated.  and will take time....at least another 5 decades!

Answer 2

I found this tirade by an anonymous blogger.

The jury system on trial

I unfortunately lived through the O. J. trial and was disgusted with the verdict, as was the majority of the American public. I was sickened by the ignorance of the people who served on that jury. I’m not saying that the jurors were stupid. They were just ignorant of the nuances of the American judicial system and weren’t qualified to sit on that jury.

I was equally distressed by the innocent verdict in the Robert Durst trial. Mr. Durst killed his neighbor, cut up the body, bagged up the parts and then dumped them into Galveston Bay. Somehow, the jury found him innocent.

Those two trials are prime examples of dozens of trials conducted in the United States throughout the last few decades. The modus operandi is always the same. A guilty rich person commits a horrendous crime and then hires the best defense lawyer money can buy. This lawyer then preys on the jurors’ ignorance by planting unverifiable seeds of doubt in their minds and induces them to conclude that the defendant is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by implying, without proof, that there may have been another killer or killers.

So, why is it so easy for these defense lawyers to deceive the jury?

For one thing, the defense lawyers deliberately select ignorant jurors. They also attempt to eliminate as many knowledgeable jurors which the prosecution selects.

How can they get away with this?

They always give prospective jurors in high profile cases questionnaires which the jurors must complete in order to be selected. An analysis of the answers to the questions on these questionnaires can quickly determine the relative knowledge of the jury pool. The defense will always focus on getting the less knowledgeable.

Of course, the prosecution is aware of this tactic, so they focus on the people in the pool who should be more aware of the nuances of the legal system. That’s why jury selection takes so long in high profile cases. The final jury set is usually a mishmash of jurors which cover the spectrum of economic and education status, but invariably contains more than one ignorant juror.

The problem with this scenario is that the jury is always stacked against the prosecution. The defense needs to convince only one juror in order to get a mistrial. You get one ignorant juror on the jury who buys into the reasonable doubt nuance, and the trial is over.

On the other side of the coin, the prosecution must convince all twelve of the jurors that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. That is a much tougher job.

So, is there a solution to this problem?

Yes. There are a myriad of ways to fix the problem. The United States legal system must be revamped in fundamental terms. For one thing, the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be defined so that even ignorant jurors can understand it.

The best way to explain reasonable doubt is to explain to a juror what it isn’t.

Suppositions by anyone do not constitute reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt must be based on verifiable evidence. For example, if a defense lawyer suggests that someone may have seen a mysterious car in the neighborhood, and that the occupants could have been members of a satanic cult who stumbled upon and killed the victim, jurors need to ignore this information unless there are credible witnesses who are willing to testify under oath that they witnessed the event or there is specific forensic evidence which verifies the supposition.

The defense lawyer is trying to plant doubt in the jurors’ minds by implying, without proof, that other persons could have committed the crime. An ignorant juror is going to buy in to this tactic, and think that the defendant is not guilty because there is some miniscule possibility that someone else could be responsible for the crime. The defense lawyer is, in many cases, presenting several hypothetical scenarios which could have happened, but not providing any witnesses or forensic evidence to back up his assertions.

One solution could be to do away with the jury system and adjudicate all criminal cases using professional judges as the jurors. These judges would have law degrees and understand the nuances of the legal system. They would be paid handsomely for their efforts and also be graded each time they render a verdict. Each juror would have to submit a written document explaining his reasoning for his verdict. This document would be reviewed by an independent board whose only duty would be to judge the quality of the juror’s decisions. If the jurors are graded as substandard in two cases, they would be fired.

Also, in order to lessen the costs to taxpayers in these high profile cases, the prosecution and defense lawyers would have a limit on the time allowed to present their cases and a limit on the number of witnesses who can be called and cross examined. These parameters would be determined by the chief judge based on the complexity and logistics of the case, not on the wealth of the defendant. No exceptions or extensions would be allowed.

In addition, in order to avoid mistrials, the verdict would be based on a majority, not unanimous, ruling.

The above suggestion is just one proposal. There are a myriad of other solutions which could be applied to the problem.

We need to start a dialog to begin the process of finding a legal system to replace the current system which favors the wealthy