Introduction
The American legal system is guided by various clauses of the US Constitution. “The US legal structure includes federal courts and state courts” (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010). Federal courts execute legal issues stated in the US Constitution. “They have limited jurisdiction because they can only hear cases approved by the United States Constitution or federal statutes” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). Conversely, state courts deal with several types of cases. Criminal justice system is one of the important aspects of the US legal structure. This essay discusses the significant elements of the criminal justice system in the United States.
Purpose of Adversarial System
“The adversarial system refers to a legal system that is usually adopted in common law countries” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). In this legal system, two advocates present evidence of their parties before an independent jury (Schmalleger & Hall, 2013). In this case, facts are verified verbally through an intricate process of persuasion. A jury evaluates the arguments presented to it and makes a ruling (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). Justice is achieved when the most efficient opponent is able to persuade the jury that his or her standpoint on the case is the right one.
In the US, “the adversary system is divided into civil system and criminal system” (Schmalleger & Hall, 2013). These two aspects of the adversary system have some common characteristics. Nonetheless, they have different structures. In the US, adversarial trial is carried out because of the following reasons.
First, it aims at finding evidence that can be used to solve a dispute in court. Second, it facilitates fair arbitration of disputes. Thus, it protects the Americans against repression by the government. In addition, fair trial leads to an impartial verdict that is supported by the public. “The most widespread view of the adversary system is that it is the best truth-finding system” (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010).
Standard of Proof for Reasonable Doubt and Preponderance of the Evidence
The legal structure applies two standards of evidence, which must be fulfilled before a jury declares the winner of a case (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010). Civil courts usually apply an inferior standard of confirmation. Conversely, criminal courts make use of a superior standard of verification called beyond reasonable doubt (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010).
Preponderance of Evidence
“In a civil court, a petitioner is required to verify his or her case through preponderance of facts” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). Therefore, the petitioner must provide substantial evidence to prove that the defendant committed an offense. The petitioner can utilize testimonial and tangible evidence to prove his or her case (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). The defendant can easily win a case if the petitioner fails to confirm his or her accusation (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010).
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Beyond a reasonable doubt refers to an advanced level of verification in criminal courts. The prosecutor should demonstrate that the accused committed an offense beyond a sensible doubt (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010).
Elements of Criminal Conduct
“Elements of an offense are constituents that should be present in a case” (Schmalleger & Hall, 2013). A tribunal should give substantial evidence to demonstrate that all aspects of an offense are present in a particular case (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). According to the US legal system, a case must encompass the following elements.
Intent or guilty psyche is the first important constituent of a case. It means that an individual should have the mental capacity to commit an offense. For instance, “an individual who plans to carry out a radical attack meets the condition of intention” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013).
Conduct is the second element of a case. It refers to actions taken on the part of the accused (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010). For instance, an individual can think of stealing, but may not conduct the offense. In this case, a thief is not culpable since he or she has not committed an offense.
Concurrence is the third element of a case. It means that there should be a clear-cut connection between an intent and conduct (Schmalleger & Hall, 2013). Causation is the fourth component of a case. There should be evidence to justify that an individual’s plan and conduct led to an offense (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010). It is important to note that the absence of any of these four elements can affect the credibility of a case.
Crimes against Society and Morality
A crime against morality is an offense that contravenes moral principles in a society. For instance, “homosexuality and prostitution are moral offenses” (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010). In the US, homosexuality was once a crime against morality. At present, it is legal in the US. “Crimes against society are prohibited activities in the society” (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010). Some of the crimes against society include violence, misuse of drugs, and terrorism (Neubauer & Fradella, 2013). Crimes against morality violate moral principles in the society. Conversely, crimes against society undermine the entire society and its moral principles (Siegel & Schmalleger, 2010).
References
Neubauer, D., & Fradella, H. (2013). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. New York: Cengage Learning.
Schmalleger, F., & Hall, D. (2013). Criminal Law Today. New York: Prentice Hall.
Siegel, L., & Schmalleger, F. (2010). Courts and Criminal Justice in America. New York: Prentice Hall.