Criminology writing

1) Crawford v. Washington (POST) 9 sentences min

Let’s talk about the Crawford v. Washington case from 2004 This case was decided while I was working as a domestic violence prosecutor. We prosecuted cases where the victim wasn’t cooperating with us (generally because she didn’t want her partner prosecuted for the violence because he could lose his job, wouldn’t be able to support their family, the victim was afraid the defendant would be even more angry and would beat her again, etc.). So I tried many cases where I was able to have the police officer testify about what the victim said when the police first came to the scene. Because the statements were made under stress and right after the incident, they were an exception to the hearsay rule. As a result, I didn’t even need the victim to testify. But Crawford changed all that.

The Supreme Court in Crawford said that the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment meant hat the defendant had a right to confront and cross examine witnesses against him/her. If the victim didn’t testify, then that right was in jeopardy. As a result, there were many cases that, after the date of that court decision, we could no longer prosecute because the victim wouldn’t testify.

So here are the questions I want you to answer:

1. What is the Right of Confrontation and why it is important?

2. What is hearsay?

3. Do you agree with the decision in Crawford? Why or why not?

2) Write a helpful response to the students. How you agree and give your positive opinion and add your info to it. 5 sentences min

Student response : The Right of Confrontation gives the defendant the opportunity to confront their accuser. Hemmens, Brody, and Spohn (2017) Criminal Courts claims, “The confrontation clause guarantees the defendant’s right to face and confront any witness or evidence offered by the prosecution in a criminal trial or other proceedings substantially related to his or her ability to defend against the charges faced” (p. 265). In other words, the confrontation clause allows defendants to defend themselves against the charges the prosecution placed. Hearsey are out of court statements made by witnesses who are not available to testify at the defendant’s trial. Those statements can be considered as evidence, only if the judge finds the evidence reliable and trustworthy. I agree with the decision in Crawford v. Washington because testimonial evidence should only be acceptable at trial. The hearsay evidence used in court in the case of Crawford v. Washington by the victim was non testimonial evidence.

Resources:

Hemmens, C. Brody, D. Spohn, C. (2017). Criminal Courts: A Contemporary Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications Inc.

“Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon
“FIRST15”

Order Now