Due Process and Crime Control
Case
I witness the case trial of Patrick Crusius, who killed about 20 people and wounded at least 26 people at Walmart in El Paso (Quek, 2019). The attack targeted the local Hispanic communities. Patrick Crusius did not have a mask, thus making it easier for people to identify him. Therefore, people involved in the shooting dialed 911, and police responded promptly. The shooter surrendered, and the police arrested him. The guy was then taken to court and charged with capital murder and hate crimes.
Crime model
The crime control model of punishment was used in this case since the man was arrested and found guilty of his crimes. Under the crime control model, the police were not worried about the evidence collected since the man was found in the crime scene. Investigations, arrests, and search powers were considered necessary in this case. For instance, the police investigated Patrick’s manifesto shared in an online platform targeting the Hispanic communities. There were also CCTV camera broadcasting wearing a black T-shirt, ear protectors, and holding a gun.
I agree with the model of punishment since the suspect was court red-handed, and there were recordings to show that he committed the crime. The issue related to this model is that the crime control model would see this case as a slam drunk; hence there would be no need to waste resources and time of taking the right procedures (Ying-dong, 2016). The only effective use of time will be to punish since there is enough evidence to convict the criminal. This is because there were live cameras in the Walmart, and the man did not hide his identity. The criminal justice would prevail as it aims at ensuring that the rights of the victims of the people shot and injured are well protected. Criminal justice also helped in providing justice for the people who were murdered at the Walmart during the shootings.
Sentencing
The charges against the shooter came after he surrendered and confessed to having committed the crime. He even confessed that he was targeting the Mexicans. He was charged with hate crimes and capital murder. A federal trial has not yet been set in state court due to the emergence of the epidemic. For this reason, the trials have been postponed until further notice. If he were to be sentenced, he would be sentenced to death or even life imprisonment.
The sentencing guidelines would be based on violating the gun legislation rules. The federal government has put certain restrictions on possession of firearms by certain individuals and ownership of certain ammunition (Fraser, 2019). It has numerous gun policies ranging from who can purchase or possess a gun. Therefore, wrongdoers convicted under sections 924(c) often receive an average sentence of over 12 years in jail (Fraser, 2019). The amount of time spent in jail depends on the nature of the crime committed. More so, offenders charged with serious offenses and multiple counts often receive long sentences, as stated by the federal government. Under section 924(c), those charged with mass shooting exceed 27 years of imprisonment, which is nearly two times that of an average offender convicted of a single count (Fraser, 2019).
There are Issues relating to sentencing such as dissatisfaction with uncharged crimes dissatisfaction with findings of menta mental state and prison overcrowding. For instance, the case of Patrick remains uncharged even though he has committed a serious offense. There is also the problem of distinguishing between accidental crimes and intentional crimes while sentencing people. I also think that some people are always convicted for the wrong reason. There were no issues raised in Patrick’s case. This is because he pleaded guilty of the offenses committed.
Post-conviction relief
There was no conviction post relief since the offender’s faces 90 federal charges and 22 hate crimes (Quek, 2019). The offender confessed to have committed the crimes, and there is enough evidence to show that he was involved in crime. His plea of guilty was voluntary, and the sentence given was subject to the collateral attack. All these reasons make it impossible for the offender to obtain post-conviction relief. The law for post-conviction relief states that there should be a remedy for post-conviction review of the judgment of conviction. There should also be the characterization of the proceedings. For instance, the procedure of postconviction should align with that of the remedy. The law also states that there should be a legal representation of the accused. In this case, the respondent should be the person seeking relief by using his or her name.
The difference between the two is that the post-conviction of filed in the trial court, unlike in a direct appeal (Pernell, 2017). In most cases, post-conviction is done to address cases that are unclear in the case while an appeal aims at seeking if a judge has made a mistake on the case (Pernell, 2017). Unlike a direct appeal, post-conviction relief helps the accused to challenge the legality of the judgment of conviction and the sentence issued.
References
Fraser, R. S. (2019). Forty Years of American Sentencing Guidelines: What Have We Learned? Crime and Justice, 48(1), 79-135.
Pernell, L. (2017). Racial Justice and Federal Habeas Corpus as Postconviction Relief from State Convictions. Mercer L. Rev., 69, 453.
Ying-dong, G. A. O. (2016). Reform of urban crime control model in the United States. Urban Problems, (2), 12.
Quek, N. (2019). El-Paso Shootings: Growing Threat of White Supremacists.
