Research Policies and Their Importance in the Field of Criminal Justice

...

From a critical perspective, the exclusionary rule could have caused lack of support from the supreme court justices in the effort to mitigate the anticipated impact of Ohio rule. To begin with, the decision lacked privacy supported with the evidence that over the years some justices had been openly made and critical of the rule affiliating the exclusionary. Moreover, it is pointing out that subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have broadened the assessment of legal searches thereby limiting the application of the rule as far as criminal justice is concerned.

Additionally, there was another policy developed by Gideon V. Wainwright which emphasized the need for the defendants to be given attorneys during the trial process in case the felony is in the courts of the state. This resulted in many states providing the attorneys even before the court’s decision. Other states followed a different path of compliance that led to the establishment of more public defender programs in most regions. Nevertheless, in other regions local associations cooperated with the judges to implement some techniques that facilitated compliance with the new policies of the Supreme Court.

Comparing these two policies, it turned out that Gideon’s policy had a higher level of clarity than the Ohio policy. One reason for this was that most states had already implemented the policy that Gideon had called for. Another factor explaining more acceptance of this policy was that it had sharp definitions as announced by Gideon in comparison to the announcement Ohio established regarding their policy. Although the court never specifically never took sides regarding the provision of lawyers, it is still clear that the defendant must get assistance from an attorney. Also, the supreme court, under the leadership of the chief justice that followed never retreated from the policy of Warren regarding the provision of the attorney for the defendants as it did much to address the search of seizure by Ohio ("Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright", n.d.). All these factors combined show the contribution of Gideon’s policy during that time.

Conclusively, the policies used by the supreme court to apprehend criminal justice in one way or another are jumbled up based on the discussion provided in this paper. To a greater extent, ambiguity forms the major issue of the entire matter while in other circumstances, there is erosion of these policies as the courts replace them with others. All these variables put together amount to greater discretion for the implementers. Some of the policies of the judiciary impose a greater impact on the society. Research is, therefore, important in developing a nation’s policy in a way that prevents envisioning of constitutional framers in the judicial system.

---------------------------------------------------------------

References

Bachman, R. & Schutt, R. (2013). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice (5th ed.). SAGE.

Carp, R. & Stidham, R. (2001). Judicial process in America (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright. United States Courts. Retrieved 28 December 2016, from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright

Hyder, A., Corluka, A., Winch, P., El-Shinnawy, A., Ghassany, H., & Malekafzali, H. et al. (2010). National policy-makers speak out: are researchers giving them what they need? Health Policy and Planning,26(1), 73-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czq020

National Research Council (U.S.).,. (2008). Rebuilding the Research Capacity at HUD (1st ed., p. Chapter 9 The Relationship Between Research and Policy Development). National Academies Press.

Neocleous, M. (2000). The fabrication of social order (1st ed.). Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.