Criminal Justice Reseach Paper Topic

[Bigs Wife]

OK! I need some help here. For my intro to criminal justice class I'm supposed to write a 3 page research paper, in which, the topic (relating to the Criminal Justice System) is my choice. I need some help thinking of a topic... He wants uniqueness. he said... I favor papers for a better grade that are unique in nature. Not that a well written paper on the Fourth Amendment or Gun Control will yield you a lower grade but I am looking for something more original. For Example, "crime in Afghanistan because of the war" or "how the crime rates are the same or different because of similar economic times during the Great Depression." so if anyone can help me, that would be fantastic. thanks guys!:1zhelp:

 

[txinvestigator]

I don't think your "crime in another country" topic will fly, as they are not a part of what most consider the Criminal Justice System.

A topic I find interesting is the large number of people who were convicted on eyewitness testimony who are now being exonerated by DNA. The narrow topic is "why eyewitness testimony is generally unreliable unless corroborated by other evidence".

Or the phenomenon of false rape allegations in domestic situations.

I can think of several more if those don't float your boat.

 

[TexasRedneck]

How about delving into why someone can be tried civilly for something they were found innocent of criminally - and that's not double jeopardy?

Before ya'll jump - I have NO doubt that OJ was guilty as sin - but a jury found him innocent - and that should've been the end of it. I don't LIKE it - but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be.

 

[Buckles]

i think that something along the lines of crime rates during different economic times would be good. im in the same class at Sam Houston right now.

 

[kurt]

I did one on the cost vs. benefit of the prison system. It compared and contrasted the costs of housing non-violent inmates with educational and rehabilitative alternatives. Both failed miserably in practice when considering the recidivism rate.

 

[Bigs Wife]

How about delving into why someone can be tried civilly for something they were found innocent of criminally - and that's not double jeopardy?

Before ya'll jump - I have NO doubt that OJ was guilty as sin - but a jury found him innocent - and that should've been the end of it. I don't LIKE it - but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be.

While researching this topic I found this answer to that question... a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior. for a criminal suit, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Differences between Civil and Criminal Law
The double jeopardy rule arises from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the relevant clause of which reads: "[no person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" Double jeopardy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so therefore, in a civil suit, your life is not in jeopardy, nor a limb.

 

[TexasRedneck]

You're right - just your financial freedom. Tell me - do YOU want to be 60 and bankrupt?

How about those found innocent of murder, then brought up on civil rights charges.....

 

[txinvestigator]

You're right - just your financial freedom. Tell me - do YOU want to be 60 and bankrupt?

How about those found innocent of murder, then brought up on civil rights charges.....

people are not found innocent in a criminal trial. They are found "not guilty". That does not mean, by ANY stretch, that the jury believed the person to be innocent. In a criminal trial, the jury is required to presume the person not guilty when the trial begins. If the state does not prove each element of the offense BEYOND a reasonable doubt, then they MUST find the person not guilty. There are many reasons evidence can be withheld from a jury.

In a civil court, the STATE is not the plaintiff, a person who believes he was wrongly injured in some fashion is. The burden of proof is different, and all persons have the right to sue to address perceived wrongs. If someone committed a crime against you, and the person was found not guilty due to suppressed evidence, shoddy prosecution or whatever, other than an outright exoneration, don't you think you should be able to take action against that person?


I won't even bother to go over the "bankruptcy" issue, other than to say it is just not an issue in Texas.

 

[robocop10mm]

people are not found innocent in a criminal trial. They are found "not guilty". That does not mean, by ANY stretch, that the jury believed the person to be innocent. In a criminal trial, the jury is required to presume the person not guilty when the trial begins. If the state does not prove each element of the offense BEYOND a reasonable doubt, then they MUST find the person not guilty. There are many reasons evidence can be withheld from a jury.

In a civil court, the STATE is not the plaintiff, a person who believes he was wrongly injured in some fashion is. The burden of proof is different, and all persons have the right to sue to address perceived wrongs. If someone committed a crime against you, and the person was found not guilty due to suppressed evidence, shoddy prosecution or whatever, other than an outright exoneration, don't you think you should be able to take action against that person?


I won't even bother to go over the "bankruptcy" issue, other than to say it is just not an issue in Texas.

Exactly! No such thing as a verdict of "innocent". Double jeopardy refers to the government prosecuting one of the same crime twice. People are found not guilty of State charges and then prosecuted under a Federal statute. Just ask a guy named Stacey Koons formerly of LAPD.

Read "Freakonomics". Chapter 4 relates the Roe v Wade decision legalizing abortion with a subsequent drop in crime. Fewer children born to poor, undereducated single mothers so fewer poor, undereducated people in the next generation to commit crime.

International studies of Criminal Justice are often very appealing to professors/instructors. Are you taking the class at ACC? Texas State? Who is your instructor? Please don't tell me it is Joe Stan.

 

[wrtanker]

There is an exception to the double jepardy rule. I might not describe it just right but this is what they taught us in UCMJ class. If you are a military person who commits a crime in the civilian arena but involve your military status (for instance, rob a bank while in uniform) you can be tried in civilan court and then again in militry court regardless of the outcome of either trial. I hope I remembered/described that correctly.

 

[robocop10mm]

You cannot be tried again once found not guilty of a crime. A different statute carries a different crime. UCMJ, Federal law (USC), State law, local ordinances, etc. You rob a bank in a civilian area, while in uniform, you can be tried in 3 different courts, State, Federal and Military. Three different sts of laws that were broken.

Even if you are found not guilty of the robbery in all 3 courts, you could theoretically be tried for lesser offenses like theft.

The LAPD officers in the Rodney King case were tried and found not guilty in state court of the assault, then tried and found guilty in Federal court for civil rights violations.

 

[TexasRedneck]

...and that is my point. Split the fine hairs of "innocent"/"not guilty" all you want - in the layman's mind it's the same end result - but to me, if you've been tried for the crime, you've been tried for the crime. The fact that we've found "work-arounds" for verdicts we don't like is another one of those slippery slopes that bother me - and should bother everyone, because sooner or later, YOU could be the one facing that kind of prosecution.

 

[robocop10mm]

If you have been tried for the crime, and found not guilty, you have been tried for the crime. If you ALSO committed a different crime at the same time, you can still be tried for THAT crime. I really does not matter if the "different" crime is from a different law book or a different title in the same law book, it is still "different".

There is a concept called "Lesser Included Offense". Capitol Murder is the ultimate crime. A lesser included offense could include, Intentional Murder, Manslaughter, Criminally Negligent Homicide, Aggravated Assault (with deadly weapon or with serious bodily injury, two different crimes), Assault with injury, Assault by Contact, Disorderly Conduct, Perhaps Unlawfully Carry a Weapon (UCW). The list goes on and on. If found not guilty of one, you "may" be charged with one of the others later.

Some jurisdictions charge everything in one case and give the jury the option of finding guilt in one or more of the charges. Texas rarely does that. One charge for the "best" offense.

 

[txinvestigator]

...and that is my point. Split the fine hairs of "innocent"/"not guilty" all you want - in the layman's mind it's the same end result - but to me, if you've been tried for the crime, you've been tried for the crime. The fact that we've found "work-arounds" for verdicts we don't like is another one of those slippery slopes that bother me - and should bother everyone, because sooner or later, YOU could be the one facing that kind of prosecution.

A civil trial is NOT a prosecution.