Equal Rights for All?

Should High-Profile Suspects Receive the Same Treatment as those Accused of Petty Offenses?

Regardless of the disciplinary charges they face, not everyone should be denied equal treatment. “Everyone is innocent unless proved guilty,” as the saying goes. The formal judicial system delegated adjudication to the court of trial. The sole entity with the authority to declare anyone guilty or innocent is a court of law. Furthermore, the facts provided to the courts by both parties are taken into account. The person filing the petition bears the presumption of evidence. Simply put, the defendant must answer the plaintiff’s testimony with sound evidence that will persuade the judges not to declare a guilty verdict (Grist).

The Bone of Contention

The bone of contention in this paper is whether people who have been accused of perpetrating abhorrent crimes like murder, rape, arson, kidnappings among many others should be given the same treatment as those facing petty offenses allegations. Although some may argue that certain crimes are evident especially when there have been eyewitnesses, therefore justice should be meted out on such persons on the spot. Moreover, some people may also argue that letting people roam freely after they have committed despicable crimes is tantamount to encouraging other criminals to perpetrate crimes. They may continue killing and robbing knowing that even when they are caught, the law is lenient on them. Connecting that to the case of Ted Bundy who has been accused and even convicted of high-profile criminal cases, there is an urgent need to relook the issue of giving high-profile suspects of criminal acts the same treatment like people who have committed petty offenses.

Why Shouldn’t Every Person Accused of an Offense be Afforded the Same Opportunity?

Going by the thesis statement stated earlier on, not every person accused of committing an offense or crime should be afforded the equal opportunity. Despite the need to allow an individual to prove their innocence, it’s imperative to look at the magnitude of the crime committed and if necessary put some restrictions on the person accused. Ted Bundy is accused of several criminal acts in Washington, Colorado and Utah but the police only gather evidence and present it to court since it’s only the courts which have the mandate to pronounce innocence or declare a guilty verdict. For a hard-core criminal like Ted Bundy, the grave allegations of kidnapping and killing young women in large numbers and dumping their bodies in desolate places. At one time, Ted Bundy is further accused of slaying a girl in the University of Washington and burying her in the shallow grave at the base of Mount Taylor. Such acts should deny the suspect the right to walk freely until proven guilty by the court.

Preventing Further Crimes

Another reason why some suspects should be denied the privilege of being innocent until proven guilty is because restricting their movement will prevent them from committing other similar crimes in other places. For example, if Ted Bundy was arrested and detained while still awaiting the verdict of the court, he would not have sexually assaulted 18 young women and instigated the murder of 36 women across the country. Perhaps the accused would have only executed a few lives if not one. For that reason, not all crimes should be handled with the same treatment, as the magnitude of the crime committed differs (Calvi).

Reforming the Criminal Justice System

Furthermore, the criminal justice system should also be reformed to ensure that whenever they are collecting evidence, they should make sure that the evidence meets a certain threshold of evidence gathered, they ought to put the suspect in custody even before arraigning the accused to court. Moreover, the law enforcers or prosecutors need to institute timely investigations and collect the evidence quickly to avoid the risk of losing certain crucial leads that disappear when the investigation takes a longer time. Speedy investigations will reduce the chances of the accused person walking freely and enjoying the privileges that should only be a privilege of petty offenders.

Consideration of Past Crimes

Again, there is also a need to look at the criminal justice system to ensure that it does not overlook the past crimes or sins of the defendant even in cases of self-represented litigants or even in cases where attorneys represent the defendants (Hess 263). Just like in the episode of Law and order where the justice system was alive to the fact that the attorney participated in the cover-up of the crimes committed. Instead of offering legal services, the defendant’s lawyer colludes in a scheme to deny other people justice by conspiring with his client to hide the bodies of which his client had been accused of slaying. Therefore, the jury did a commendable act of stopping the attorney and his clients from hiding the bodies of the young girls.

The Importance of Pre-Trial Restrictions

Finally, the restrictions that ought to have been instituted before the trial are, ensuring that the people who were accused of murdering six innocent girls are put in police custody until their case is heard and determined by a well-constituted court of law (Smith 7). If that had happened, Ted Bundy would not have gotten the opportunity to carry out underhand deals with his lawyer to bury the evidence and obstruct justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, going by the evidence seen in the Law and order movie episode of the bodies, there is a need to relook at the way abhorrent criminals are handled, especially the ones who have been accused of committing despicable crimes. Tightening the gap in the criminal justice system would help reduce the high level of crimes.

Works Cited

Grist, Thomas Mason. ”Societal Grace in Criminal Justice: A Theological Perspective on Probation and Parole Policies.“ (2017).

Calvi, James V., and Susan Coleman. American law and legal systems. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Hess, Krista A. ”The Broad Reach of Limited Scope Representation: A Pathway to Access to Justice.“ W. New Eng. L. Rev. 39 (2017): 263-327.

Smith, Gregory D. ”Guide for Tribal Appeals by Pro Se Litigants and Lay Advocates.“ American Indian Law Journal 4.2 (2016): 7.