critical analysis paper_michael cox
DESCRIPTION
critical analysisTRANSCRIPT
Cox 1
Michael Cox
Sara Knox
Criminal Justice 1100
December 2, 2012
Critical Analysis of Chapter Six: Police and Law
For this assignment, I have chosen to write a critical analysis of articles that I think relate
to chapter six in the Criminal Justice in America textbook. The title of chapter six in the text
book is titled Police and Law. What really stood out about this chapter was that it is a very
informative chapter of what powers the police have in regards to the law. This chapter
specifically mentions the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America, probable cause, the Miranda warning, and police corruption. I have chosen articles
from CNN that I think relate to this chapter based on corruption in the police force, the use of the
Miranda warning, and the use of the exclusionary rule.
The first article I have chosen to write about is from CNN titled “FBI: Puerto Rico Cops
Protected Cocaine Dealers.” I chose this article because it talks about a major issue we are
having right now in the United States and that is police corruption. According to this article, “it
was the biggest crackdown on police corruption in the FBI’s 102-year history; authorities
charged a total of 133 individuals in Puerto Rico. Also, of the 133 individuals charged 89 were
police officials.” (CNN Wire Staff) The article goes on to break down how the corruption
happened. I believe this article relates well with chapter six because in chapter six it talks about
two different types of corrupt police officials: “grass eaters” and “meat eaters.” According to
Cox 2
chapter six, “grass eaters are officers who accept payoffs that the routines of police work bring
their way, and meat eaters are officers who actively use their power for personal gain.” (Cole, pg.
190) I believe that most of the police officials mentioned in the article could be described as
meat eaters because most of them used their power to get what they wanted.
The second article I chose is also from CNN and is titled “Divided Court Rules for Police
on Miranda.” This article relates to the chapter because in the chapter it talks about the required
situations in which the Miranda warning should be given to people before being questioned or
arrested by the police. The Miranda warning is as follows “suspects must be told four things:
they have the right to remain silent, if they decide to make a statement, it can and will be used
against them in court, they have the right to an attorney present during interrogation or to have
the opportunity to consult with an attorney, and if they cannot afford an attorney, the state will
provide one.” (Cole, pg. 180) This article discusses how “a police officer in California did not
state the Miranda warning to a suspect because he feared the suspect would die from his
wounds.” (Mears, Bill) I feel that this was the right decision to make because in some situations,
at the police officers discretion, there may not be time for the officer to recite the Miranda
warnings to suspects. I feel this is one of those times because the officer used his discretion and
feared that the suspect was going to die from his injuries and needed the information from the
suspect.
The final article I chose to write about is from CNN and is titled “Police Don’t Have to
Knock, Justices Say.” This article relates to chapter six in the book because it is talking about the
exclusionary rule used in search-and-seizure cases. “The exclusionary rule is defined as the
principle that illegally obtained evidence must be excluded from trial.” (Cole pg.183) According
the book, “there are two exceptions to the exclusionary rule the “good faith” exception and the
Cox 3
inevitable discovery rule.” (Cole pg. 184) “This article discusses a Supreme Court case in which
an officer did not knock on the door and wait a “reasonable” amount of time before entering.
Furthermore, the article states that the police entered the home and found drugs and the suspect
was eventually convicted of drug possession.” (Mears, Bill) In my opinion this would fall under
the inevitable discovery rule because no matter how long the officers waited at the door for the
suspect to answer the door, the drugs would have been found in the course of executing the
search warrant.
Cox 4
Works Cited
Cole, George, and Christopher, Smith. Criminal Justice in America. California: Wadsworth,
2010. Print.
CNN Wire Staff. "FBI: Puerto Rico cops protected cocaine dealers - CNN.com." CNN.com -
Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. N.p., n.d. Web. 2
Dec. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/puerto.rico.arrests/index.html?
iref=storysearc h>.
Mears, Bill. "CNN.com - Divided court rules for police on Miranda - May. 27, 2003." CNN.com
- Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. N.p., n.d. Web. 2
Dec. 2012.
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/27/scotus.miranda.questioning/index.html?iref=stor
ysear ch>.
Mears, Bill. "CNN.com - Police don't have to knock, justices say - Jun 15, 2006." CNN.com -
Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. N.p., n.d. Web. 2
Dec. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search/index.html?
iref=allsearch>.