In a criminal justice system, there is an elaborate structure comprised of different components that work together to ensure that justice prevails. Within these elements, case adjudication requires the dual court system and the roles of the court workgroup group for this purpose. The present article critique analyzes two peer-reviewed articles that are dedicated to historical Supreme Court cases on search and seizure, stop and frisk, searches for evidence, or police interrogation and confessions according to the systematic approach. The application of a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of legal arguments, ethical considerations, and the integration of Christian and Biblical worldview perspectives aims to provide a deeper understanding of the complexities regarding the dual-court system and the role of each in the courtroom workgroup within the discourse on constitutional democracy, individual rights, and justice in the criminal justice system.
Article 1: Individual rights and social welfare: the emerging legal issues
Reich’s (2020) examination of Terry v. Ohio’s historical Supreme Court case in 1968, aimed at stopping and frisking individuals in law enforcement, has provided a complex outline of this concept’s legal framework through history. In an analysis of the impact that the case’s implications contextualized individual rights, notably the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, Reich traverses challenging ground, which lies in the sphere of civil liberties and public safety. The author does so by emphasizing the inherently tenuous nature of the balance between these interests within a constitutional democracy. This broad analysis reveals new perspectives on the current discourse on police practices and individual freedoms to be preserved while modern policing is going on.
In this article, the author uses the case in Terry v. Ohio to provide a laudable level of legal analysis, thoroughly analyzing the historical background of the case, the reasoning behind the verdict, and the potential implications of the case for the criminal justice system. The article aims to present the reasons behind the decision made and how its implementation in law enforcement practices resonates with the law. Also, by highlighting the nuances of the legal sphere related to stop and frisk, the author enlightens the readers. However, the Christian point of view provides an extra layer to the conversation, highlighting how human dignity and rights should be preserved according to the Bible under justice and compassion principles. Such an injection of moral and ethical issues makes the debate more fleshed out, as the imbalance between the legal imperatives and ethical imperatives in criminal justice is illuminated.
Despite its in-depth legality examination, the article fails to detail the empirical data or case studies as proof of stop-and-frisk policies’ real influence, more precisely on marginalized groups. The lack of empirical evidence impedes the articulation of the real-life effects generated by such practices and contributes to an in-depth representation of what they represent. However, despite the author’s promotion of individualistic rights, the failure to engage the different perspectives diminishes the article’s breadth. The current discussion is imbalanced, and therefore the readers’ engagement level is low, with a risk of forming only a fragmented understanding of the ethical dilemmas involved with the stop-and-frisk approach.
Article 2: Police Deception in Interrogation as a Problem of Procedural Legitimacy.
In the article by Etienne & McAdams (2021), the authors provide a comprehensive ethical analysis of a case comprising Miranda v. Arizona (1966), one of the landmark Supreme Court cases, and highlight the role individual rights play within the criminal justice administration. Through the dissection of the Miranda decision that necessitated law enforcers informing suspects that they had constitutional rights before custodial interrogation, the authors manage to navigate their readers through the dynamics of police interrogation strategies. They adequately point out the ethical need for maintaining fairness and safeguarding the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. With this ethical view, Martinez and Lee add considerably to the continuing debate on police practices and rights as balanced with the Constitution. With regard, the article gives practical implications of the Miranda decision on police practices. The authors explore the importance of a full training and monitoring scheme to prevent coercion and make interrogations operate within constitutional standards. To overcome the practical difficulties inherent in the application of Miranda rights, the authors suggest pragmatic recommendations to improve the credibility of the criminal justice system.
Though it offers a thorough historical analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, it does little in terms of discussing modern-day д4 issues and challenges about police catechizing. A more vigorous interpretation of contemporary issues, for example, the resistance of technological progress to the method of perspectives about the examination and transforming into a legal administrative structure, strengthens the general analysis and provides a more complete picture of modern factors. Secondly, there is a reliance on secondary sources, which may restrict the depth of the perception of the authors and omit the most recent changes in the line of police interrogation. To develop the argument, it can be reinforced with secondary sources or case studies; in this way, the argument becomes even stronger, and a detailed review of the subject is made.
A Christian and Biblical Worldview
Referring to the Christian and biblical worldview, it is crucial to maintain the laws of justice, mercy, and dignity for the human race during jurisprudence management. And, although the criminal justice system should be obliged to provide public safety and appropriately deal with persons’ misdeeds, it also needs to understand the fact that human life is peculiarly created in the likeness of God. As a result, moral and ethical considerations as well as factors related to constitutional rights should be the foundation of issues like stop and frisk and police interrogation violations. For Christians to uphold constitutional democracy, they are mandated to push for policies and operations that are the rule of law-oriented but at the same time foster fairness and equity in everything that one does. This involves endorsing judgments that assure personal freedoms, like the prohibition of unreasonable searches and the fact that meaningful due process is observed during police interrogation. It is a project critics find valid, and indeed, Christians should do their bit by way of critical analysis and ethical reflection to help advance the discussion regarding the point of contention between law enforcement practices and civil liberties.
Conclusion
Analyzing historical Supreme Court cases on search and seizure, stop and frisk, searches for evidence, or police interrogation and confessions offers much reflection on the involuted state of the criminal justice system. Using the macro level of analysis, we reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of legal arguments, ethics, and wider implications for constitutional democracy by applying the information from the reviews of peer-reviewed articles and the application of a Christian and Biblical worldview model. However, discussions and research geared towards creating a just society, respect for the rights of individuals, and a society founded on compliance with principles of compassion and righteousness will continue to be critical in the days ahead.
References
Etienne, M., & McAdams, R. (2021). Police Deception in Interrogation as a Problem of Procedural Legitimacy. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 54, 21.
Reich, C. A. (2020). Individual rights and social welfare: the emerging legal issues. In Welfare Law (pp. 255-267). Routledge.
write