Summary Of The Collapse Of Criminal Justice
In The Collapse of the American Criminal Justice, William Stuntz (2016) discloses,
Legislators will define crimes too broadly and sentences too severely in order to make it easy for prosecutors to extract guilty pleas, which in turn permits prosecutors to punish criminal defendants on the cheap, and thereby spares legislators the need to spend more tax dollars on criminal law enforcement. constitutional law can reduce the risk of this political collusion by limiting legislators’ power to criminalize and punish. The Bill of Rights did not do so. Madison’s text ignores the core problem the justice system’s strange institutional design poses. (68-9). This passage explains how the American criminal system came to corruption. It summaries everything …show more content…
The law since defined so vague gives options to prosecutors and police officers to interpret it as they see fit. Prejudice and bias then emerges making the whole system run by officials. Stuntz (2016) also states that “Like most lawmakers, they wrote their constitutional texts with an eye toward the past they knew, not the future they had yet to see..the Bill was the product of its time and place” (p. 73). The constitution was made in a time where it was completely different then how it is now. Applying everything that it says and taking it literally creates a problem. It gives room for legislators to define it however they want. Having limits and setting a balance might be a solution that creates harmony in a given society. At the same, not acting by the constitution serves a problem, law enforcements are given too much power over the bill of rights. plea bargaining was to keep the courts flowing to avoid over crowdedness so that prosecutors could focus more time on serious crimes. The legal system undergoes a confusion on whether to follow what the institutions tell you to do or the people's rights as mentioned in the bill of rights. In this case, more than often it
Legislators will define crimes too broadly and sentences too severely in order to make it easy for prosecutors to extract guilty pleas, which in turn permits prosecutors to punish criminal defendants on the cheap, and thereby spares legislators the need to spend more tax dollars on criminal law enforcement. constitutional law can reduce the risk of this political collusion by limiting legislators’ power to criminalize and punish. The Bill of Rights did not do so. Madison’s text ignores the core problem the justice system’s strange institutional design poses. (68-9). This passage explains how the American criminal system came to corruption. It summaries everything …show more content…
The law since defined so vague gives options to prosecutors and police officers to interpret it as they see fit. Prejudice and bias then emerges making the whole system run by officials. Stuntz (2016) also states that “Like most lawmakers, they wrote their constitutional texts with an eye toward the past they knew, not the future they had yet to see..the Bill was the product of its time and place” (p. 73). The constitution was made in a time where it was completely different then how it is now. Applying everything that it says and taking it literally creates a problem. It gives room for legislators to define it however they want. Having limits and setting a balance might be a solution that creates harmony in a given society. At the same, not acting by the constitution serves a problem, law enforcements are given too much power over the bill of rights. plea bargaining was to keep the courts flowing to avoid over crowdedness so that prosecutors could focus more time on serious crimes. The legal system undergoes a confusion on whether to follow what the institutions tell you to do or the people's rights as mentioned in the bill of rights. In this case, more than often it