Every constitutional reform made is primarily based on human rights. Everyone in the country is considered and presented in the American constitution without bias despite their race, gender, religion, or ethnicity. The court uses the constitution to implement the law. The court ensures that everyone’s rights and freedom are respected as per the American constitution. All legal measures and laws adopted by the state that is not consistent with the constitution are declared null and void by the competent judicial institution of America. The law does protect not only the law-bidders but also lawbreakers and crime victims. For instance, by the early 1990s, every American state had enforced statutory rights for crime victims. Most of these statutory rights were consistent with the American constitution and had constitutional amendments to protect them. Today, all fifty states have established some form of a statutory crime victims’ bill of rights, and twenty-nine have amended their constitutions to include the rights. This paper aims at explaining how the court impacts the individual rights of the victim, offender, and the public.
Impacts of Court on Individual Rights of Victims, Offenders and the Public
Most victims and their families think that the criminal justice system treats them like stepchildren; their concerns and rights are ignored and misunderstood. In most American communities, victims have complained that they have been denied their voice in decisions whenever the defendants are released on bail despite the victim having legit safety concerns (Schmalleger, 2010). To make the matter worse, they are not informed about the release of the defendants. There are also many claims from the victims claiming that they are not informed whenever the court changes its schedule despite having taken off from work, paid for transportation to the court, and having incurred many more expenses like paying for someone to take care of their children. According to the law, a plea agreement provides an efficient means for the criminal justice system to manage overwhelming caseloads (Schmalleger, 2010). However, victims complain that the cases are routinely finalized without their notification, consultation, or input, denying millions of victims their right to be informed about their cases and contribute their input to the justice process. Despite the enactment of the victim impact statement laws in every American state, many victims are complaining of not being informed about sentencing hearing or their right to submit a statement about the emotional, physical, and financial impact of the crime committed (Schmalleger, 2010). To add to the claim list, the victims claim that the courts overlook the devasting financial costs of crimes they undergo. Despite the financial challenges, the courts fail to order restitution or appropriate measures to ensure they get back the lost funds during the justice process.
After going through the commonly reported victim claims, it gave me an insight into how the victims are not noticing the role played by the courts and judges to ensure everyone, including the public, the victim, and the offender, get their right served and respected in a free and fair trial. Judges in the courtroom play a significant role in the daily implementation of the victims’ rights. Judges are responsible for every ruling made in the courtroom that affects the right of every participant. After all, judges are in control of every operation in the courtroom. They ensure every ruling made observes to ensure the rights of the victim, public, and offender are present, identified, heard, and respected. Through the oath they took to serve the American Judiciary, it is their obligation to ensure that the criminal justice process is impartial and fair (Schmalleger, 2010). Therefore, most crime victims complain about special treatments that the judges are not ready to offer since it is against their work ethics. Whatever claims they are making, they are concerns that have been addressed appropriately and justly based on the American constitution and the qualified judges’ fundamental viewpoints regarding human rights. The rulings turn to claims once they are not offered to the crime victims as the expected special treatments. It’s the obligation of the courts and the judges to ensure the rule of law and hold a balance between contradictory and often competing interests of various prosecutions and defenses. They ensure the individual rights of the crime victims, offenders, and public are observed, heard, and respected accordingly.
There are several more principal task force recommendations for the judiciary to ensure the individual rights of the offender, victim, and the public is respected. These include implementing court processes and procedures with sensitivity to the needs of every party in the crime, including making sure that the distinguished waiting areas are availed for defense witnesses and prosecution and allowing witnesses, victims, and offenders to be on call for the justice proceedings (Schmalleger, 2010). The courts also ensure the interests of every party are given the same weight when ruling on requests for continuances. During the proceedings, the defendants are given a chance to defend themselves. Victims are also given a chance to ensure their efforts are present and, where relevant, heard during the important phases of the justice proceedings. The court also understands the effects of the crime on the public and the crime victims and ensures sensitivity to their needs when dealing with the cases. Besides these, many more recommendations have been put in place by the legislative changes at the federal and state level as well as by crime victims’ rights and constitutional amendments in the twenty-nine states of America (Schmalleger, 2010). So far, the judges have recognized and given weight to these changes and recommendations to ensure the individual rights of all parties are heard and honored at a particular phase of the criminal justice process.
Individual Rights versus Public Order
Courts do everything to ensure and maintain a balance between individual rights and public order. When making its ruling, the Supreme Court tries to promote public order while also protecting the rights of an individual. However, maintaining balance is not always easy. It is challenging in some difficult cases that involve issues like gun control legislation, the death penalty, and government collection of metadata. Sometimes, the court is forced to support the extension of individual rights, while at other times, it allows for limits on individual rights in order to promote public order.
Three significant amendments alongside the rule of law have helped maintain a balance between individual rights and public order. These amendments are the second amendment, the fourth amendment, and the eighth amendment. The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms or guns (Winkler, 2006). The Fourth Amendment protects individual belongings, persons, and homes from unreasonable seizure and search (Sklansky, 2000). The Eighth Amendment protects an individual from excessive fines and bails enforced by the government, or the inflicted unusual and cruel punishments (Berry III, 2013). For instance, in recent years, the Supreme Court has witnessed an increase in death penalty cases, leaving them questioning whether the application of capital punishment will go against the Eighth Amendment’s protection against unusual ad cruel punishments. Over time, the definition of unusual and cruel punishment has changed in American courts. In the most recent cases presented in the courtroom, the Eighth Amendment has prevented the courts and states from issuing the death penalty to defendants who are legally judged and found guilty yet are mentally incompetent or underage (Berry III, 2013). Therefore, implementing the Eighth Amendment in the criminal justice system has significantly helped ensure balance in individual rights.
The discussion over arms ownership and arms control is a great topic of controversy in present America. Some people have urged that the government should prevent gun violence and do more to protect public order. People are proposing that the government pass limiting legislation to prevent access to specific weapons and issue compulsory wait periods. Other people have argued that the government should not interfere with individuals’ right to own a gun. Although the local and state governments are doing everything to increase gun control legislation to protect public order, the Supreme Court is recently ruling supporting the Second Amendment, which protects a person’s right to possess a gun (Winkler, 2006).
The National Security Agency (NSA), alongside the CIA and FBI, have increased their efforts to curb terrorism in the United States since the 9/11 terrorist attack (Schmalleger, 2010). The National Security Agency must carry out surveys to protect and secure national security. They have created a database of digital metadata from major phone companies like Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth to ensure maximum survey and security. This information was known in 2013 after Edward Snowden, former CIA, disclosed classified information on how the NSA was monitoring phone calls of allied nations’ leaders (Schmalleger, 2010). The disclosure raised a debate question whether the monitoring by the NSA was an example of unreasonable seizure and search. The National Security Agency critics confirmed that the agency had violated the Fourth Amendment since it had no warrant to survey or collect the data and had not disclosed it was carrying out such an operation. The National Security Agency defenders claimed that the agency was executing its duty to ensure safety for everyone, and the frequent need for a warrant to collect data may sometimes delay their operations and their ability to prevent terror attacks. Therefore, the primary role of implementing the Fourth Amendment was to balance public safety and individual protections from unreasonable seizure and search (Sklansky, 2000).
The criminal justice system is doing everything to ensure the individual rights of victims, offenders, and the public are heard and respected. Through judges’ impartial and fair ruling, everyone is getting what they deserve. On the other side, the Second, the Fourth, and the Eighth Amendments work hand in hand to ensure the courts maintain a balance between individual rights and public order.
References
Berry III, W. W. (2013). Eighth Amendment Differentness. Mo. L. Rev., 78, 1053.
Schmalleger, F. (2010). Criminal justice: A brief introduction. Pearson/Prentice Hall. 453-478
Sklansky, D. A. (2000). The Fourth Amendment and common law. Colum. L. Rev., 100, 1739.
Winkler, A. (2006). Scrutinizing the Second Amendment. Mich. L. Rev., 105, 683.
write