Lawbreaking And Criminality: What's The Real Connection?

Breaking the law is something that few people intend to do, but it is argued that everyone has done it at least once in their lives. The consequences of breaking the law vary depending on the crime committed, the jurisdiction, and whether the offender is an adult or a minor. In general, there are three primary punishments for criminal offences: community service, a fine, or imprisonment. However, the specific consequences depend on the severity of the crime, with minor misdemeanours often resulting in community service or a fine, while more serious offences, such as burglary, assault, and drug-related crimes, can lead to incarceration or even the death penalty in some states.

Minor vs. serious crimes: Minors rarely face jury trials, while serious crimes for adults can result in grand jury indictments

The distinction between minor and serious crimes is a critical factor in determining whether a case proceeds to a jury trial. In the United States, minors who find themselves in the juvenile justice system rarely face jury trials, with a judge typically deciding their fate based on the evidence presented. On the other hand, serious crimes committed by adults can result in grand jury indictments, which are reserved for the most severe offences.

The juvenile justice system in the United States operates separately from the adult criminal justice system in most states. Juvenile cases, which involve minors accused of committing crimes, are generally handled by a judge who considers the evidence and makes a ruling. This is because juveniles are not considered to have the same legal capacity as adults and are often tried in specialised courts with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The specific procedures can vary by state, with some allowing jury trials for juveniles facing serious charges.

In contrast, serious crimes committed by adults can lead to a grand jury indictment. A grand jury is a group of citizens who review the evidence presented by prosecutors and decide whether there is sufficient grounds to bring a criminal case to trial. Grand juries are typically used for the most severe crimes, such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and arson, which are known as felony cases. In these cases, the defendant has the right to a trial by jury, though they may choose to waive this right and opt for a bench trial decided by a judge.

The distinction between minor and serious crimes, therefore, plays a significant role in determining the involvement of juries in the justice process. Minor crimes, particularly those involving juveniles, are often handled by judges, while serious crimes committed by adults are more likely to involve grand juries and result in jury trials.

Plea bargaining: Defendants plead guilty to lesser charges or prosecutors drop some charges for a lighter sentence

Breaking the law can indeed make you a criminal, and in the United States, the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining. This is a legal arrangement where the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest to a charge in exchange for concessions from the prosecutor.

Plea bargaining can take several forms, such as charge bargaining, where the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offence, or sentence bargaining, where the expected sentence is agreed upon before a guilty plea. Count bargaining involves pleading guilty to a subset of multiple charges.

For example, a defendant may plead guilty to a lesser charge, such as disorderly conduct for prank calling, or a reduced sentence for jaywalking. In exchange, the prosecutor may agree to a more lenient sentence or the dismissal of other charges.

Plea bargaining serves to expedite the resolution of criminal cases and is advantageous for both the prosecution and the defence. It allows them to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of a trial. It also reduces the burden on courts and offers defendants a chance for lighter sentences.

However, plea bargaining has faced criticism, particularly regarding its potential to coerce innocent defendants into pleading guilty out of fear of harsher penalties if convicted at trial. It is argued that the practice may not always align with principles of transparency, fairness, and the right to a full trial.

Despite the criticism, plea bargaining remains a prevalent practice in the United States and has been adopted in various forms worldwide, although it varies significantly based on local legal traditions and regulations.

Trial rights: The Constitution guarantees defendants presumed innocence, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and other rights

The US Constitution guarantees defendants the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and to only be convicted if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a fundamental principle of the US justice system, and is backed by numerous Supreme Court decisions, such as the 1895 Coffin v. United States case.

The presumption of innocence is not explicitly written in the Constitution, but it is recognised as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states.

Due process means that the government cannot deprive citizens of their freedom or property without following the proper procedures. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to due process, and it is the government's burden to satisfy the court of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant.

The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error, and it provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.

In civil cases, the standard is much lower than in criminal law. In civil law, the standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. This generally means the jury believes it is more likely than not that the defendant did what the other side says they did.

Sentencing: Judges or juries decide sentences, which can include fines, incarceration, probation, or the death penalty

In most criminal cases, judges are responsible for determining the sentence a defendant will receive. After a guilty verdict has been reached, the judge will consider several factors before deciding on an appropriate sentence. These factors may include the nature and severity of the crime, any aggravating or mitigating factors, and the defendant's prior criminal history. Judges will also look at a presentence report and consider statements from the victims as well as the defendant and lawyers.

In some cases, a jury may be responsible for determining the sentence. This usually occurs in capital cases where the death penalty is being considered. In these cases, after finding a defendant guilty, the jury will hear evidence from both sides before deciding on whether to impose the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole.

In many jurisdictions, judges must follow specific sentencing guidelines when determining an appropriate punishment for a convicted defendant. These guidelines consider various factors, such as the offence committed and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. While these guidelines do not bind judges, they must provide reasoning if they choose to deviate.

The actual sentence imposed on a defendant will often vary according to the defendant's background and the factual circumstances of the case. For example, judges may consider the defendant's past criminal record, age, and level of sophistication, as well as whether the defendant expresses remorse.

It is worth noting that the sentencing decision is not always final. Defendants can appeal their sentence if they believe it was unjust or too harsh. In these cases, a higher court will review the case and determine whether the sentence was appropriate based on the evidence presented at trial.

Common law-breaking: People often unknowingly break the law, e.g. prank calling, using unsecured WiFi, or jaywalking

While most people don't intend to break the law, it's possible to do so without realising. Prank calling, for instance, can be considered harassment or disorderly conduct, especially if threatening remarks are made or if the calls are repetitive. Using unsecured WiFi, or "piggybacking", can also be illegal in certain places, even if you have permission from neighbours or businesses. This is because it can interfere with internet service plans and providers.

Jaywalking is another example of a common, unintentional crime. This term refers to the violation of traffic laws by pedestrians, such as failing to use a crosswalk or crossing a street unsafely. Depending on where you live, jaywalking could carry a fine, be frowned upon, or be completely illegal.

Under historical common criminal law, criminal violations required a "guilty mind" in addition to the criminal act itself. This "guilty mind" is known as "mens rea" in legal terms and refers to the mental element of the offence. For instance, accidentally bumping into someone and giving them a black eye would be considered an accident. However, if you intentionally hit someone, that act would constitute a criminal offence due to the presence of mens rea.

In modern times, certain crimes no longer require a "guilty mind". For example, in Arizona, driving under the influence is a strict liability crime, meaning that no intention to drive while intoxicated needs to be proven for a person to be found guilty.

Frequently asked questions