Retribution vs rehabilitation

Rehabilitation The criminal justice system comprises many distinct stages, including arrest, prosecution, trial, sentencing, and punishment, quite often in the form of imprisonment. As will become clear, it is in the last two of these many stages that the debate over rehabilitation and retribution is of special significance.

Retribution vs rehabilitation

The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.

There, as in the four cases before us, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession.

The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney.

Retribution vs rehabilitation

Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder. When the defendant denied the accusation and said "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it," they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room.

Public attitudes towards criminal punishment, rehabilitation and reform

There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed. During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and they prevented his retained attorney, who had come to the police station, from consulting with him.

At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. We held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible. This case has been the subject of judicial interpretation and spirited legal debate since it was decided two years ago.

Both state and federal courts, in assessing its implications, have arrived at varying conclusions. We start here, as we did in Escobedo, with the premise that our holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings.

Debate: Rehabilitation vs retribution - Debatepedia

We have undertaken a thorough reexamination of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it. That case was but an explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution -- that "No person.

These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured "for ages to come, and. Over 70 years ago, our predecessors on this Court eloquently stated: The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England.

While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the [p] questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition.

The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand.

But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment.

In stating the obligation of the judiciary to apply these constitutional rights, this Court declared in Weems v. United States, U. Under any other rule, a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power.

Its general principles would have little value, and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas.Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.

Intermediate Sanctions And Shock Probation - Community correction is a term that refers to everything ranging from diversion before the trial to the punishments that follows after the trial.

In a comment on Mark Bennett's post criticizing a Colorado district attorney's plan to offer cash bonuses to her deputy prosecutors who participate in at least 5 trials in a year and win a felony conviction in at least 70% of them, I remarked: I agree with Gerry Spence: If a prosecutor is doing his job right, he should.

TOP. Opinion. WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime.

Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment:Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab. Help us improve our Author Pages by updating your bibliography and submitting a new or current image and biography.

Miranda v. Arizona :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center