Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law - Research Paper Example

? Criminal Justice and the Rule of Law By Introduction The rule of law in criminal justice contemplates that criminal responsibility can only be determined pursuant to substantive law and procedural fairness (Cole & Smith, 2008). In other words, an individual will not be held accountable for a crime unless his or her conduct is defined by the criminal law as an offence and his/her culpability has been proven by virtue of a constitutionally fair criminal investigation and trial. The rule of law in criminal justice is therefore the main instrument of social control as it is intended to control the behavior of government and the governed. Substantive law controls the behavior of the governed and procedural fairness controls the behavior of the government and each of its organs and agents. In this regard, average citizens and the government have a responsibility to contribute to safety and security by complying with the rule of law which is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system. This research paper analyses individual and state responsibility within the rule of law underlying criminal justice by discussing substantive law and procedural fairness. In discussing individual responsibility, St. Leo University’s core value of responsible stewardship will be discussed to exemplify how an individual can avoid criminal behavior by acting responsibly and at the same time meet the ends of criminal justice contemplated by the rule of law: social control for community safety and security. Substantive Law and Individual Responsibility The substantive law within the criminal justice system, defines criminal conduct and prescribes punishment for committing criminal offenses (Siegel, 2009). For example, it is a crime of murder to intentionally kill another human being and the punishment for the crime of murder can be life imprisonment or state execution, depending on the jurisdiction in which the offence is committed. However, not all criminal offences are that well known. For example, an individual may know that criminal trespass is a crime, but may not know what constitutes criminal trespass. The individual may think it is perfectly lawful to enter a seemingly abandoned home and remove items of interest. In other words, ordinary citizens, who may not be familiar with all prohibited or criminal conduct and might without knowledge of the law, commit an offense. This is unfortunate, because it is a well-established principle of criminal law that ignorance of the law or mistake of the law is not a defence to criminal behavior (Loewy, 2009). A valid defense however, will be founded on the basis of intention. If an individual lacks criminal intent to commit a crime, the individual can be exonerated (Loewy, 2009). Criminal laws are constructed from public morals and public opinions (Siegel, 2009). Individuals can therefore simply choose to conduct themselves in accordance with public morals and public opinions of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Even so, Marxist criminologists argue however, criminal justice and the rule of law is designed to protect the middle classes and the wealthy. While the wealthy amasses wealth, it is said that the “poor gets prison” (Vito & Maahs, 2012, p. 217). For example, conduct on the part of the wealthy for the purpose of amassing wealth is usually treated as a regulatory mishap or a minor offence, despite the harm this conduct brings to others. As Vito & Maahs (2012) explains, environmental damages caused by wealth industrial giants in the pursuit of greed has caused significant damages to others, their properties and has even caused the death of a many more. Similarly, fraud, embezzlement and other white collar crimes committed by the wealth or the middle classes hardly gets the king of punishment that poor criminals obtain for what is known as “street crimes” (Vito & Maahs, 2012, p. 217). In fact, many of the white collar crimes are never prosecuted (Vito & Maahs, 2012). Yet, it can still be up to the individual who is fortunate enough to be a member of the wealthy or middle class to act responsibly in safeguarding the safety and security of their communities. St. Leo University has taken this approach to preparing its students for their role in social control by presenting core values, one of which promotes responsible stewardship. The core value of responsible stewardship informs St. Leo University’s students that: Our Creator blesses us with an abundance of resources. We foster a spirit of service to employ our resources for University and community development. We must be resourceful. We must optimize and apply all of the resources of our community to fulfill Saint Leo University’s mission and goals (Saint Leo University, n.d.) This core value of responsible stewardship not only urges philanthropic giving, but also urges respect of the environment. When read together with the university’s mission and goals, responsible stewardship also contemplates that graduates and students alike will act with a moral conscience and will be moral leaders and ambassadors for moral behavior. Therefore as responsible stewards, St. Leo University’s students and graduates will not only be resourceful with respect to how they treat the environment, but with how they treat others who are less fortunate and how they pursue their own gaols. As responsible stewards, their goals will also be to promote community safety, peace and security, economically, socially and morally. In satisfying this core value, students and graduates of St. Leo University will not only uphold the rule of law, but will also contribute to social control. As Cullen (1994) argues, the rule of law in criminal justice is just as much about social justice and social support as it is about social control. In this regard, social justice and social support goes a long way toward community safety and security and is arguably a more effective deterrent to criminal offending than purely punitive measures (Cullen, 1994). Saint Leo University’s core value of responsible stewardship fosters a community in which those with more to give, share and/or act as moral role models. By taking this approach, graduates and students of Saint Leo’s University are meant to be the standard bearers of what good and moral citizenship is. Ultimately, responsible stewardship provides a guide for how an individual can take responsibility for following the rule of law and maintain the ends of criminal justice: social control and social order. Procedural Fairness and State Responsibility Procedural fairness in the rule of law underlying criminal justice is a set of prescribed laws and policies to which public officials must comply in determining the culpability of an individual suspected of committing a crime pursuant to the substantive law (Cole & Smith, 2008). The US Constitution is the guiding principle in that the Bill of Rights establishes the boundaries of government and its agents conduct in investigating crimes. There are limits to which the government can search individuals and their private papers and property and seize private property. There must be probable cause within the parameters of due process. These kinds of boundaries are important for safeguarding against official abuse of power over private citizens who do not have the resources of the state. Procedural fairness protects the rights of the individual against excessive and abusive state power by guaranteeing the individual the right to bail, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and public trial within a reasonable time and the right to legal representation, the right to silence among others. Procedural fairness is not only important for regulating official state powers, but also for ensuring that innocent and law-abiding citizens are not arbitrarily arrested and wrongly convicted of crimes. According to Rottman (2011) procedural fairness is also important for maintaining the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and in doing so cultivates support and acceptance of the rule of law. Procedural fairness cultivates the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system and in doing so promotes the rule of law. When there is procedural fairness, members of the public are more likely to trust that legislators are passing laws that are within their power to pass and that are consistent with the interests and needs of society as a whole. Moreover, procedural fairness ensures the public that those who commit crimes will be culpable and will be treated appropriately by the courts. Likewise, members of the public will have confidence that an innocent man who is wrongly accused will be exonerated by the criminal justice system and that the rights of victims and retribution will be achieved. By contrast, in the absence of procedural justice members of the public will not believe in the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and this could be detrimental to the rule of law. Members of the public would necessarily feel that their right to privacy will not be protected and will therefore refuse to respect a criminal justice system that does not respect human rights. Similarly, victims and members of the community seeking retributive justice may seek to take the law into their own hands. Therefore, procedural fairness is a significant instrument of social order and social control within the realm of the rule of law within criminal justice. Procedural fairness is also important with respect to law enforcement and their duty to investigate and prevent criminal offending. When policy abuse their powers and deny suspects and law-abiding citizens procedural fairness this can compromise the legitimacy of law enforcement. The police rely on the goodwill and support of the public for identifying and capturing criminals (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). When law enforcement act outside of the rule of law in terms of procedural fairness, there is a danger that the public will doubt the legitimacy of the police and will not cooperate with the police. This is very important since police rely on victims to come forward and identify criminals. Moreover, police also rely on witness reports to help in establishing the elements of a criminal offence. Ultimately, procedural fairness ensures that the state and its organs guarantee institutional procedures that not only uphold the rule of law, but respect the rule of law and ensure that criminal justice is achieved for the benefit of all. If the state refuses to uphold and respect the rule of law, it can hardly expect for private citizens to uphold and respect the rule of law. The result would be chaotic and social order and social control would be impossible. Procedural fairness is required to ensure that members of the public have confidence in the criminal justice system and in turn act in ways that support the rule of law. In doing so, the criminal justice is free to protect the innocent and to prosecute the guilty and quite often with the public’s support and cooperation. Conclusion The rule of law in the criminal justice system is defined by and supported by substantive laws and procedural fairness. Although substantive laws and procedural fairness serve two different purposes in the criminal justice system and in defining and regulating the rule of law, they function together to foster the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and the actors within the system. The actors are the government including the legislators, the courts and law enforcement. The public however, has a role to play in the rule of law and within the criminal justice system. The public not only upholds the rule of law, but also ensures that the state and its agents also act within the law. Without the public’s acceptance of the state and its agents’ laws and policies, the rule of law becomes compromised. The state needs the public’s support and acceptance of substantive laws in order to ensure that the public abides by those laws and cooperates with the criminal justice system in upholding those laws. This is accomplished through procedural fairness. Therefore substantive laws and procedural laws function together to ensure that the criminal justice system promotes and protects the rule of law. Without procedural fairness, substantive laws would be compromised because the latter is informed by public morals. When procedural fairness is systematically denies, public morals may be harmed and we may find ourselves living in a lawless society. References Cole, G.F. and Smith, C.E. (2008). Criminal Justice in America. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Cullen, F.T. (1994). “Social Support as an Organizing Concept for Criminology: Presidential Address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.” Justice Quarterly, Vol. 11(4): 527-559. Loewy, A. H. (2009). Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. LexisNexis Group: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Rottman, D. B. (2011). “Procedural Fairness, Criminal Justice Policy, and the Courts.” In Ismali, K. (Ed.) U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A Contemporary Reader. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, Ch. 5. Saint Leo University. (n.d.). “The First Florida Catholic University: Mission & Values.” Available online at: http://www.saintleo.edu/about/florida-catholic-university.aspx (Accessed 8/11/2013). Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T.R. (September 2003). “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing.” Law & Society Review, Vol. 37(3): 513-548. Vito, G. and Maahs, J. (2012). Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Read More