Our Criminal Justice System Has Become a Crime

“Prosecutors too often abuse unrestrained powers.”

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/19/law-enforcement-clue-jury-criminal-column/6490641/

This article written by Glenn Harlan Reynolds for USA Today boldly claims that our criminal justice system has become a crime. Reynolds starts by giving a brief overview of the ideal process of the justice system: collecting evidence, leading an investigation and taking the case to the prosecutor whom may decide to take it to the grand jury. However, Reynolds’s claim is that law enforcement fails to act this way, thus, will decide the fate of an individual if a person is suspicious or simply a political enemy. Additionally, instead of analyzing the evidence and accessing the information to decrease any reasonable doubt, investigators predetermine their stance and look for evidence or any possible violation of the law even obscure or technical statues that confirms their opinion.  The premise presented is coherent since emotional knowledge; intuition or even faith can prevent objectivity from happening. Nonetheless, even if the premise is logical, the current criminal justice system contains a grand jury of twelve citizens, which access the evidence based on induction. Therefore, Reynolds argues that investigation based on deduction is faulty and prosecutors use this method. For example, the prosecutor believes that a specific man has committed a crime; therefore, he collects evidence based on this premise even though it might not be coherent with the overall case, yet, and it loses the credibility of the suspect. Based on this principle, the suspect is forced to decide whether to plea bargain or risk going to trial and being charged even if the “evidence is less than compelling.” Plea-bargaining is an agreement in a criminal case, which the defendant pleads guilty to a specific charge in order to dismiss other charges and receive a more lenient sentence. Consequently, not all cases go to trial because of plea-bargaining, which brings up the question: is the criminal justice system honest? Understandably, the fear of imprisonment jeopardizes honesty of the suspect and even if it was based on criminal laws, did the system help solve the problem or alleviate the further consequences of a lengthy criminal case?

The second premise that complements the author’s stance on the unjust legal system is the “jury nullification”, in other words, when a jury decides not to convict because any charges would be unjust. Interesting enough, Reynolds states that everyone is guilty of some sort of crime and the ambiguity laws causes discrepancy for all citizens. Even though multiple crimes are committed everyday, it is incorrect to assume that we are all criminals for multiple reasons. First, through several ways of knowing such as perception, emotion and reason, we conclude that some basic acts are morally incorrect, such as murder or theft. Therefore, this is integrated in our culture, which does not justify being unaware of major crimes. Reynolds reinforces her belief on the ambiguity of laws by stating that three felonies are convicted per day, in most cases, unknowingly.

Due to excessive plea-bargaining, the criminal justice system is a “bureaucracy that assesses guilt and imposes penalties with only modest supervision from the judiciary, and with very little actual accountability.” The purpose of the criminal justice system is to ensure public safety by punishing those that do not abide to laws. However, is the most efficient manner to alienate a portion of the population for their crimes in order to protect the rest?

Reynolds elaborates the concept of the current criminal justice system being a crime. However, she proposes ideas to justify the transparency of the system such as discouraging overcharging and for plea-bargain offers to be disclosed at the trial along with empowering juries to realize the importance of their assistance. These moderate changes would definitely bring a better-integrated system, however, not all premises were coherent and the solution of accusing prosecutors of misconduct would end their dominance over courts as she claims. Even though some valuable points are made, not every case is suitable for the grand jury since it requires a lot of time and qualified individuals. In order to justify her claims, Reynolds would need numerous examples that reflect the amount of plea-bargaining or any other evidence that demonstrates the faultiness of the justice system. It would be interesting to compare the number of citizens who were proven innocent in the death row as a way to support her claims. It would be fair to agree with some points made, such as the vagueness of the process and language. For example, the person must be proven guilty or innocent “beyond any reasonable doubt”, yet, a flaw in the system would not entirely disqualify the validity of the criminal system.

Word Count: 774