criticism of the cjs forensics 5.1 october 6, 2014 1
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Criticism of the CJSForensics 5.1 October 6, 2014
1
![Page 2: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Objective: SWBAT
• Analyze criticisms of the criminal justice system
2
![Page 3: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Criticism
• The innocent go to jail • False confessions• Misleading/ circumstantial evidence• Bias from the jury/ prosecution • Poor legal counsel
3
![Page 4: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Innocence Project
• Founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck and Peter Neufield• While in law school at Yeshiva
University • Assist prisoners with attaining DNA
testing to prove their innocence
4
![Page 5: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Innocence Project • Nationwide they have helped overturn 311
cases• 244 since 2000
• The first took place in 1989• Exonerations have been won in 36 states • 18 were death row inmates • The average length of sentence was 13.6 years• Total number of years served was over 4,000
• Average age at the time of conviction 27 5
![Page 6: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The Innocence Project
• Race of the 311• 193 African Americans• 94 Caucasians• 22 Latinos• 2 Asian Americans
• 152 tests led to the arrest of the actual criminal• DNA evidence clears a potential suspect
in roughly 25% of cases nationwide6
![Page 7: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
• Does the state owe anything to someone that was wrongfully convicted? Assuming that the state didn’t do anything illegal?
7
![Page 8: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Criticism of the CJSForensics 5.2 – The Death Penalty in the United StatesOctober 23, 2013
8
![Page 9: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Capital Punishment
The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind. It is unique in its rejection of rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity.
-Justice Potter Stewart Furman v Georgia
9
![Page 10: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The Death Penalty • (1) the defendant is charged with a crime for which
the death penalty is a legally authorized sanction, (2) the defendant intended or had a high degree of culpability with respect to the death of the victim, and (3) one or more aggravating factors specified in a statutory list are present in the case. The statutory aggravating factors include such factors as the commission of a killing in the course of another serious offense, the defendant's having a prior criminal history involving serious violent offenses, the commission of a killing after substantial planning and premeditation, killing multiple victims, or endangering the lives of other persons (in addition to the person killed) in committing the crime. 18 U.S.C. 3591-93.
10
![Page 11: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The Death Penalty • (1) the defendant is charged with a crime for which
the death penalty is a legally authorized sanction, (2) the defendant intended or had a high degree of culpability with respect to the death of the victim, and (3) one or more aggravating factors specified in a statutory list are present in the case. The statutory aggravating factors include such factors as the commission of a killing in the course of another serious offense, the defendant's having a prior criminal history involving serious violent offenses, the commission of a killing after substantial planning and premeditation, killing multiple victims, or endangering the lives of other persons (in addition to the person killed) in committing the crime. 18 U.S.C. 3591-93.
11
![Page 12: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The Death Penalty • (1) the defendant is charged with a crime for which
the death penalty is a legally authorized sanction, (2) the defendant intended or had a high degree of culpability with respect to the death of the victim, and (3) one or more aggravating factors specified in a statutory list are present in the case. The statutory aggravating factors include such factors as the commission of a killing in the course of another serious offense, the defendant's having a prior criminal history involving serious violent offenses, the commission of a killing after substantial planning and premeditation, killing multiple victims, or endangering the lives of other persons (in addition to the person killed) in committing the crime. 18 U.S.C. 3591-93.
12
![Page 13: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The Death Penalty • (1) the defendant is charged with a crime for which
the death penalty is a legally authorized sanction, (2) the defendant intended or had a high degree of culpability with respect to the death of the victim, and (3) one or more aggravating factors specified in a statutory list are present in the case. The statutory aggravating factors include such factors as the commission of a killing in the course of another serious offense, the defendant's having a prior criminal history involving serious violent offenses, the commission of a killing after substantial planning and premeditation, killing multiple victims, or endangering the lives of other persons (in addition to the person killed) in committing the crime. 18 U.S.C. 3591-93.
13
![Page 14: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
The Death Penalty • 18 USC 3591-93• Conditions• The Death Penalty needs to be “on the table”• The Defendant needs to have a “high degree” of
culpability• Aggravating factors
• Killing in the commission of another crime (Felony Murder)
• Premeditation • History of violent offenses• Multiple victims • Endangering the lives of others
14
![Page 15: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Furman V Georgia • William Furman was a burglar• He “accidentally” killed the a family member of
the house he was burglarizing • Georgia held a sentencing trial to apply the death
penalty • It lasted one day• The jury had nearly complete discretion to level and
sentence they wanted• It appeared that poor, black (and poor and black)
defendants were receiving the death penalty at a much higher rate
15
![Page 16: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
The decision • 5-4 Decision overturning the Sentence • There were over 200 pages of concurrence and
dissent • Brennan, Douglas, and Marshall (Thurgood) • The Death Penalty was almost certainly cruel and
unusual
• Stewart, White• The Death Penalty can be used, but must be done
fairly and openly • There can be no arbitrary application
• The dissenters• Said this was a matter for the states and personal
feelings should not come into play 16
![Page 17: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
![Page 18: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
![Page 19: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Criticism of the CJSForensics 5.3 – Effective RepresentationOctober 25, 2013
19
![Page 20: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Capital Punishment
The penalty of death differs from all other forms of criminal punishment, not in degree but in kind. It is unique in its rejection of rehabilitation of the convict as a basic purpose of criminal justice. And it is unique, finally, in its absolute renunciation of all that is embodied in our concept of humanity.
-Justice Potter Stewart Furman v Georgia
20
![Page 21: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Effective Representation • The Sixth Amendment • Guarantees the right to legal counsel • Gideon v Wainwright
• No matter how poor/ the level of case you are guaranteed legal counsel
21
![Page 22: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Effective Representation • Legal Services Corporation • Federal Non-Profit Corporation • Signed into law in 1974 • Richard Nixon
• LSC is the single largest source of funding for civil legal assistance in the country
• “there is a need to provide high quality legal assistance to those who would be otherwise unable to afford adequate legal counsel.”
22
![Page 23: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Who gets legal aid? • In 2012• Over 2/3 were women • 46% white• 27% black• 18 % Hispanic
• It cost over $800 million to fund LSC programs nationwide
• Almost 2 million people served• 809, 830 cases closed• 3, 945 full time attorneys • That is roughly 206 cases per full-time attorney
• 134 local legal aid programs 23
![Page 24: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The LSC comes under fire• Nixon made the corporation legal• Regan cut the funding. • Regan did not feel that it was the role of the federal
gov’t to fund this program and attempted to defund the entire corp
• It remained but tit was severely limited
• Today LSC is a functioning non-profit funded in part by the government• It also gets funding from charitable foundations and
other sources• In the current budget LSC received just under $341
million dollars in federal funding 24
![Page 25: Criticism of the CJS Forensics 5.1 October 6, 2014 1](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56649ea35503460f94ba6d21/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Classwork: • 1) What is the biggest challenge facing legal aid
services right now? • 2) Why is it such a challenge? How do individual
politics play into the matter? • 3) Why is it so important to ensure that the poor
have effective legal representation?
25