Procedural Limiting Law
Procedural law defines how procedures and laws should be enforced. Although
procedural law allows the criminal justice system to investigate and process cases and specifies
the defendants rights, in essence this isnt necessary because the criminal justice system treats
minorities unfairly. Although there may be rights that are afforded to everyone, not every
individual is actually being treated fairly. Procedural law is supposed to ensure that every case is
treated fairly but statistics show that this is not occurring. There is a large disparity between
convictions of whites versus convictions of Blacks or Latinos. People from disadvantaged areas
are disproportionally represented in prison populations. Much of the time, minorities are part of
the population that is struggling economically, which predisposes them to more discrimination in
the legal system. Not only is there discrimination based on race, but gender as well. Men are
convicted at much higher rates then women are. Half the women serving time serve a maximum
sentence of five years or less. Men on the other hand serve a sentence of ten years or less.
Women account for about 7% of incarcerated people, making the ratio 14 men to 1 woman in
state and federal prisons. For example, if a man is accused of rape and there is evidence proving
this accusation, he will receive some form of punishment or jail time. If a woman on the other
hand is accused of rape, the jury may be distracted by her looks or make excuses that women
cant rape men. As a result, the woman is given a much lesser punishment, even though the same
crime was committedrape. Although racial disparity studies are inconclusive, it is still evident
that some form of disparity is taking place.
Having procedural law in place does not warrant that all cases are treated with the same
discretion, therefore procedural law should be limited because it is not being used appropriately,
or at least not all aspects of procedural law are. If procedural law was limited, it may put
everyone on more of an equal scale because the rules that are set to dictate how to carry out laws
would be limited so the criminal justice system would perhaps start denying whites some of their
rights as well because the constitutional rights would not matter and the courts would no longer
have to worry about being just to everyone, including whites. There might as well not be any
rights or laws in place because theyre being violated for Blacks and Latinos. If no rights
existed, minorities wouldnt feel like theyre being discriminated against because no rights can
be violated since no one possesses any. Furthermore, the process of deciding what sentence to
give would be much quicker and would be based off substantive law rather then the judges
discretion.
Procedural law should be limited because by having so many rules and regulations as to
how cases should be handled and what process courts should go through wastes a lot of time.
The process that is involved in procedural law takes too long. Deciding whether or not bail
should be set and how to process the case in general is too time consuming. By limiting this
procedure, not only would it make the criminal justice system more efficient, but it may also help
with the prison overcrowding issue. Inmates who are sentenced to the death penalty may remain
on death row for years before they are executed. Many of them die while they await their
execution. To resolve this issue, procedural law should be limited and more emphasis should be
placed on substantive law. Substantive law defines which acts should be punished and it
specifies what the punishment should be. If procedural law were limited in this situation, it
would allow for a speedy decision as well as a speedy trial. Currently, everyone has a right to a
speedy trial but in todays society with the increased amounts of cases that are entering the
criminal justice a system, speedy trial is not actually speedy at all. After visiting the courts, I
observed a case that has been going on since 2007. Five years later and this case is still being
heard in trial, proving how a speedy trial is not actually speedy at all.
When dealing with punishments such as the death penalty, to avoid injustice, substantive
law would clearly define which crimes deserve the death penalty. For instance anyone charged
with a first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter would automatically be eligible to receive
the death penalty. If procedural law were limited, the process that criminal justice officials would
need to follow would be very minimal. Instead, they would rely on substantive law to dictate
what set punishment for that specific crime would be required. If each crime had a designated
punishment that the community was aware of, people would begin to think twice before
committing a crime because they know exactly what punishment is awaiting them. The current
gray area that exists would be minimized because there wouldnt be doubts as to whether a
certain crime under certain situations would be severe enough for imprisonment or if it deserves
parole or even community service. This again would focus on the minimization of rights and
focus more on a given punishment that must be carried out. Celebrities would not be able to use
their fame to get out of having to serve prison time. People such as Lindsey Lohan would be
forced to serve some time after several encounters with the law.
The main reason for why procedural law should be limited is because not every case is
the same. In todays society, each crime is treated differently with different outcomes. The
reason for this is because procedural law exists and great care is taken to ensure that the
defendants rights are protected and the criminal justice system behaves correctly. However,
because all cases are different, there is no need for procedural law because this only makes the
sentencing process longer. As stated before, by limiting procedural law and focusing more on
substantive law, each crime would have a designated punishment that would allow for a quick
trial. This would allow prisoners to begin serving their time more quickly. It would also provide
a clear beginning and ending in regards to the amount of time that needs to be served. By
implementing this, the prison overcrowding issue would begin to lessen because the criminal
justice system would know the exact time remaining on a prisoners sentence. The criminal
justice system would also be aware on which prisons will be releasing prisoners soon, so they
would be able to hold inmate in jail for a certain amount of time before sending them to prison.
Overall, focusing on the crime control model would be more effective rather than
focusing on due process because giving criminals rights is almost like rewarding them for a
crime. With a crime control model view, crimes would be punished severely enough to try and
limit recidivism. Therefore, having substantive law assures that crimes are being punished.
Substantive law defines what acts are illegal and how they can be punished. If substantive law
were limited, society would not have a clear definition of what would be considered a crime and
people would be breaking rules and laws continually. There wouldnt be any laws or rules to
break in the first place because criminal acts wouldnt be defined. Criminal behavior wouldnt be
criminal behavior. As a result, society would benefit more if procedural law were limited rather
than substantive law.
References
Cole, George F., and Christopher E. Smith. Criminal Justice in America, Sixth Edition. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Delich, Charity, and Bronwyn Harris. "What Is Procedural Law?" WiseGeek. Conjecture, 22 Feb.
2012. Web. 09 May 2012. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-procedural-law.htm>.