The Goal Of Rendering Justice By Giving Criminals Too Many Rights

American Courts
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
American Courts
The courts are the main custodians of the due process under the law. However, certain elements of the due process have impeded the goal of rendering justice by giving criminals too many rights. A good example is the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona in which a new set of procedures for the questioning of suspects by the police (The Miranda rights) were introduced and applied retrospectively to free an already convicted criminal (Burgan, 2006, p. 65). In essence, the Supreme Court set a precedent in which the rights of the offenders would be upheld more than the rights of victims. Even today, the due process seems to have failed in striking a balance between controlling crimes and protecting individual freedom. For example, almost all the rules that govern the due process (Miranda rules, fair trial, process of criminal identification, appeal, probation, and parole) tend to give criminals too much leeway (Cornell Law School, 2019). Even when criminals are convicted of serious crimes, they are still afforded meals, accommodation, recreational activities, schooling, and lawyers. This is an abuse of the justice system. Furthermore, many law-abiding citizens struggle to get their basic needs and pay huge taxes only for the funds to be used to entertain criminals within a flawed system of due process.
In order to be seen to be fair, the due process should give more room to the crime control model. Moreover, a concept such as Miranda rights has greatly limited police power, especially when obtaining valuable confessions from criminals (Burgan, 2006, p. 65). While it is reasonable to ensure that police power and the justice system does not oppress individuals by stepping on their rights and liberties, the courts should be more concerned with the rights of victims. For example, it would be unfair to exclude from trial incriminating evidence that has been seized in good faith even if the warrant for obtaining the evidence was faulty or deficient. Therefore, the good-faith exception in the United States v. Leon was a step in the right direction so that victims can obtain justice without unnecessary delays. However, the right of suspects to remain silent is a direct injustice that the courts should be more concerned about so that victims can get justice. In other words, victims of crime have been neglected by the courts who have failed to rectify the error that occurred during the Miranda v. Arizona. Additionally, the courts should serve the victims and not suspects by removing the restrictions imposed on the police when trying to search for evidence.
The development of American courts can be traced back to 1789 when Presi...