The American justice system has developed a problem over the last few years that becomes more obvious every day, threatens the well-being of every law-abiding citizen and gives refuge to those who forsake the law. The justice system still analyzes crime intently and prides itself on being fair and objective. However, in many cases, the court systems of the United States simply overlook the victim. Recently in California a man on probation agreed to waive his rights to have his property protected against illegal search under the conditions of his parole. This man is now attempting to retain that right through a lawsuit. The Supreme Court began hearing his case Nov. 6. I hope the highest court in the land will uphold the waived rights in an attempt to protect victims and not criminals.
Is that not what the courts are there for? I realize the courts exist to protect the rights of all Americans, and I definitely believe all deserve a fair trial. Yet, once someone is proven guilty, is it not the responsibility of the court to hand down a verdict that stops the defendant from doing more damage than has already been done? Is it not also the responsibility of the court to stop criminals from getting out of punishment based on technicalities and cunning legal strategies?
I have had enough of a system where a lawyer can get a client off on technicalities. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the most powerful country in the world allows this to go on. The police in this nation put themselves in the line of fire, and it is a slap in the face to these brave officers when a criminal walks out of a courtroom a free person based on a technicality. Of course not not all police officers are good. Some abuse prisoners and take bribes. These are only police officers by title and are actually criminals at heart. They deserve to be judged as harshly as the criminals they are sworn to protect society against. However, with our modern ideas of criminal rights, some criminals get off on technicalities.
Criminal rights should not exist. I am not advocating taking away the rights of a man on trial. I only mean taking away or restricting rights of those convicted of crimes. Until an individual is convicted, he or she should have the full rights of any other citizen-with the possible exception of being out on bond during a murder trial. However, when people are convicted of a crime, they waive these rights. Currently, prisoners cannot vote, so why should the argument of constitutional rights be used in the previously mentioned case or any other case? Being treated like a citizen of the United States is a great privilege that a convicted criminal does not deserve until they have paid their debt to society.
Criminals should be treated as if they have done something wrong. They should not be given the same opportunities as everyone else because they do not deserve those opportunities. After an individual leaves prison and has served the time he or she owes society, then that individual should once again be treated as a full and equal citizen, but while still in debt to society, punishment should be administered. When children make mistakes and are sent to the corner, they are punished by a loss of rights, such as time and the short-term pursuit of happiness. This is how a child learns right from wrong. When criminals make mistakes, they must also learn and be punished by a loss of rights. Criminals must not be able to get out of trouble based on technicalities. The criminal owes society those rights until the allotted time is up and then those rights must be given back to that individual. To do this, the courts must realize who the criminal is and not let the precepts of justice be twisted in a way to make the criminal the victim.