PART 1 - CHAPTER 1 The Criminal Justice System

• Jurisdiction: United States

Chapter 1 The Criminal Justice System

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

■ Explain why governments enact laws and the differences between criminal law and civil law.
■ Discuss the differences between the crime control and the due process models of the criminal justice system and the implications of following one model versus the other.
■ Identify and describe the role of the participants in the system of criminal justice.

INTRODUCTION

This book is designed to help prepare readers to perform paralegal tasks within the criminal justice system. We begin our exploration of criminal law and procedure with an overview of the criminal justice system and how criminal law differs from civil law.

The criminal justice system refers to a collection of institutions and individuals that are typically involved in the processing of criminal cases. These individuals include legislators, law enforcement officers, attorneys, paralegals, judges, court clerks, bailiffs, juries, correctional officers, and probation officers. Criminal justice institutions include law enforcement agencies, the courts, forensics labs, and corrections.

A. PURPOSE OF LAW

A law, in its most general sense, is defined as "a rule of conduct promulgated and enforced by the government." Rules of conduct can be stated in either positive or negative terms. Hence some laws prohibit people from stealing others' property or driving faster than the posted speed limit, while other laws require people to report their income and pay taxes on it.

Laws can apply to the behavior of individuals, businesses, and even governments themselves. Thus, municipalities may be prohibited from dumping raw sewage into lakes and rivers, and police officers are prohibited from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures.

Although Americans frequently complain about the specific content of some of the staggering number of laws that have been enacted by federal, state, and local governments, most laws are considered essential to the functioning of a modern industrialized society. Indeed, the development and enforcement of these laws are arguably the most important functions of government. As the Task Force on Law and Law Enforcement reported to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence:

Human welfare demands, at a minimum, sufficient order to insure that such basic needs as food production, shelter and child rearing be satisfied, not in a state of constant chaos and conflict, but on a peaceful, orderly basis with a reasonable level of day-to-day security. . . . When a society becomes highly complex, mobile, and pluralistic; the beneficiary, yet also the victim, of extremely rapid technological change; and when at the same time, and partly as a result of these factors, the influence of traditional stabilizing institutions such as family, church, and community wanes, then that society of necessity becomes increasingly dependent on highly structured, formalistic systems of law and government to maintain social order. . . . For better or worse, we are by necessity increasingly committed to our formal legal institutions as the paramount agency of social control.¹

Some laws, such as restrictions on abortion, cannabis use, and gambling, are heavily influenced by the religious and moral beliefs of various groups in the society. Others, such as traffic regulations and zoning laws, do not reflect any specific moral code. Drivers on two-lane American roads are required to use the right lane. This permits a greater number of vehicles to travel more safely and efficiently. While it is important that everyone drive in the properly designated lanes, there is no moral principle requiring people to drive in the right lane (as is done in the United States), rather than the left lane (as is done in Great Britain).

As this text proceeds, we will discuss the scope of U.S. criminal law and occasionally raise questions about the wisdom of specific laws. For example, to save lives and medical costs, many argue that governments should require drivers and passengers to wear seat belts and motorcyclists to wear helmets. Others argue that such laws infringe on people's individual rights. But while people often disagree about the application of specific laws, all but a very limited number of anarchists accept the idea that we need laws to establish the type of order and predictability that are essential to the functioning of modern society.

B. CRIMINAL VERSUS CIVIL LAW

Law can be categorized in a number of ways. One of the major divisions is between criminal law and civil law. Both consist of rules of conduct that have been established by the appropriate legal authorities, but they differ in terms of the consequences to the wrongdoer, as well as the way in which violations are investigated and prosecuted. (See Figure 1.1.) Criminal law has been defined as "the body of law defining offenses against the community at large, regulating how suspects are investigated, charged, and tried and establishing punishments for convicted offenders."² On the other hand, civil law concerns private rights and obligations.

The government is the dominant participant in criminal cases. When an individual violates a criminal law, society at large is considered to be the offended party, and government agents are responsible for initiating and prosecuting the case. Thus, if Peter Jones burglarizes Sam Smith's home, the criminal law views that act as an offense against the state rather than simply a matter between Smith and Jones. When the case goes to court, it is listed as People v. Jones or State v. Jones rather than Smith v. Jones. Government attorneys prosecute the accused party, and the victim is relegated to the role of a witness. The victim plays no role in how the case is presented at trial.

In civil cases, on the other hand, the aggrieved party is responsible for filing and prosecuting the claim. Thus, when one party defaults on the terms of a contract, for example, the other party must initiate the legal process on an individual basis. Generally, private parties hire their own attorneys to file the suit and present their case in court.

The legal consequences of civil and criminal violations also reflect this difference. Most civil cases are intended to make whole, or compensate, victims for the losses they suffered. Generally, this is accomplished through awards of money damages. In contrast, victims of crimes seldom receive any financial compensation from the perpetrator. Although a negotiated resolution of a criminal case will occasionally contain some provisions for restitution to the victim and/or the community, the fines that are assessed as part of the criminal process are paid to the state rather than the victim. In fact, incarcerating the perpetrator usually actually reduces the likelihood of that person being able to financially compensate the victim.

	Criminal Law	Civil Law
TYPE OF HARM	Harm to society	Harm to individual interests
PARTIES TO CASE	Government and defendant	Plaintiff and defendant
STANDARD OF PROOF	Beyond a reasonable doubt	Preponderance of the evidence
JUDGMENT GIVEN	Guilty or not guilty	Liable or not liable
SANCTIONS	Fines, incarceration, death	Damages, injunctions

Figure 1.1 Comparison of Civil and Criminal Law

Under the civil law, the individual plaintiff benefits directly from the outcome. The party that is found to be at fault can be required to directly compensate the victim for various types of injuries sustained. Even when the damages are punitive (designed to punish the wrongdoer rather than compensate the victim), the plaintiff, rather than the government, receives the damages award. Note, however, there are situations (usually involving antitrust and securities violations) in which the government can seek civil damages rather than criminal penalties for violations of some laws. In these cases, the government takes on the role of the plaintiff and gets any damages that are awarded.

In addition to the contrasting roles of the government and the victim, there are differences in the way that criminal and civil trials are conducted. The most significant is the standard of proof that is applied. In criminal cases, the prosecution is required to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt," but in civil actions, the plaintiff need only meet the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. "Preponderance of the evidence" is usually understood to mean that the facts asserted are more likely to be true than not true. On the other hand, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the degree of doubt that exceeds the doubt that a reasonable person would have after considering all of the evidence.

A study conducted by Rita James Simon and Linda Mahan showed that judges tend to equate "beyond a reasonable doubt" with a median probability of approximately 8.8 out of 10, while jurors averaged approximately 8.6 out of 10. "Preponderance of the evidence" was interpreted by the judges as a median probability of 5.4 out of 10, with 7.1 out of 10 being the median for jurors.³ While we cannot establish a specific percentage, it is clear that it is more difficult to convict under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard than it is to find for the plaintiff under a "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

It is important to note that a single event could become the basis for both a criminal prosecution and a civil action. For example, the victim of a battery could sue the defendant for civil damages at the same time the state is prosecuting the defendant on a criminal charge. The driver of an automobile involved in a traffic accident may receive a traffic ticket from the police and at the same time be sued by someone else involved in the accident. In certain types of antitrust cases, the government can choose between seeking criminal charges and civil damages.

Because civil and criminal proceedings...