CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY U.S. SUPREME COURT

Criminal Procedure by U.S. Supreme Court

Criminal Procedure by U.S. Supreme Court

“The Supreme Court is known and referred to as many things such as, the court of judgment, a court of last resort, a court of instance, the high court or the highest court, and the final decision.” (Abraham 1992) The Supreme Court is in most jurisdictions serves as the highest judicial body within that jurisdiction's court system, and whose rulings are final and not subject to further review by any other court. When analyzing the Supreme Court, the perspective of the Chief Justice becomes the generalization for the Court as a whole because, when each new Chief Justice is appointed, the view of the Court tends to change or alter. There have been significant changes that the Supreme Court has gone through over the last half century with the changing of judges presiding over the Supreme Court. Taking a look into these periods where there were significant changes that occurred we have to examine the Supreme Court when it was lead by Chief Justice.

While the public's perceptions of procedural justice and criminal justice legitimacy have several sources, one important wellspring is personal experience. Citizens who report that they were treated respectfully and courteously during a face-to-face encounter express more positive attitudes toward criminal justice compared to those who feel they did not receive good treatment. Those who feel denigrated, embarrassed, or abused by criminal justice infer from their experiences that officers are biased or have malicious motives and those who feel they have been targeted or singled out report more negative attitudes about criminal justice. (Barton, 1987)

The relationship between legitimacy and compliance has also been shown to exist in policing: people who believe that the criminal justice is unbiased, neutral decision-makers who show concern for citizens - including suspects - and do their best to make fair judgments are more likely to support the criminal justice as an institution, to obey officer commands, and even to follow the criminal law in general. Compliance, moreover, springs not from fear of official reprisal but from an internal, moral obligation to abide by society's rules.

The positive effects of procedural justice offer a unique opportunity for criminal justice officers and departments to earn citizens' trust and support because the quality of face-to-face contacts between officers and citizens is at least partially under officers' personal control. Citizens do approach officers with preconceived notions and stereotypes that can impact their interpretation of the fairness and quality of officers' actions, so officers' ability to determine citizens' satisfactions with encounters is not absolute. Personal encounters, though, are still important components of the public's trust in and beliefs about criminal justice because personal contacts influence global attitudes and because people often tell their friends and families about the experience, which dramatically broadens the scope of contact to include not only personal but vicarious experiences as well. (Cushman, 2001)

Procedural justice helps criminal justice get the proverbial “more bang for their buck” ...