In your opinion why do you think criminal procedure is important to our society Have you seen any significant issues develop in criminal procedures in your State Name your state What are they What realistic changes in criminal procedure would you like to see added or changed in your state In your opinion why do you think criminal procedure is important to our society Have you seen any significant issues develop in criminal procedures in your State Name your state What are they What realistic changes in criminal procedure would you like to see added or changed in your state I decided to use the state in which I currently reside which is Kentucky originally I am from Saint Louis Missouri Been visiting here for awhile My biggest problem with criminal procedure is a flaw that exists within the system I understand that many times when considering how to go about a certain situation a police officer must make a judgment call and this is largely a huge portion of their job but I also feel that when it is evident that the law has been broken the criminal procedure that should take place should be consistent You can t enforce the law without criminal procedure but if it is going to be enforced it should be done justly with fairness and be consistent An issue that I have seen in my state Kentucky as of late especially in my own city is one that I have just become privy to recently In my city in less than a week five different women were caught leaving their children in automobile while they went into stores According to Kentucky state law this is a violation of Bryan s Law and is grounds for an immediate arrest Of the five women who did this two were arrested and the other three were not They broke the law why were these other three not arrested I think that given that it was a definite violation of the law one that is punishable by arrest how does one discern from one case to the next It is based on the officer s judgment All five women will be undergoing an investigation by social services but how do you think that investigation will fair for those who were arrested in comparison to those who were not I know this simple example may not be that exciting or world changing but a change I would like to see take place is consistent enforcement In my opinion it is important to have a set of set of rules governing the series of proceedings through which the government enforces criminal laws The criminal proceedure also protects the rights of the defendants There are two types of criminal procedures that are followed The first of the federal and the second is the state proceedure People who are accused of committing federal crimes are prosecuted under federal procedures People who are accused of committing state crimes are prosecuted using state criminal procedure Under federal or state proceedure there are eight steps that are followed Booking arraignment bail preliminary hearing trial sentencing punishment and appeal are the steps I live in Ohio and there have been several procedures that have changed the criminal proceedure for the state and the entire country Mapp vs Ohio is one and my favorite is Terry vs Ohio In Terry vs Ohio the Unite States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution permits a law enforcement officer to stop detain and frisk persons who are suspected of criminal activity without first obtaining their consent even though the officer may lack a warrant to conduct a search or probable cause This type of police encounter is constitutionally permissible only when an officer can articulate a particularized objective and reasonable basis for believing that criminal activity may be afoot or that a given suspect may be armed and dangerous Terry vs Ohio in my opinion has saved several law enforcement officers lives and helps protect citizens from possible crimes In my opinion the most needed change in the criminal proceedure is the burden of proof I believe that a prosecutor only needs to prove that the elements of the crimes are met and that there is a reasonable proof that the person committed the crime I don t believe that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed In proving beyond a reasonable out it must be proven to a reasonable person Proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be tainted by certain jurors and judges that might feel that the crime was either valid or invalid For example last month in a jury trial I had a jury find a person not guilty of assault after he admitted it in open court The jury felt that maybe the defendant was provoke As I was testifying I looked at the jury and seen a person on the jury that I arrested the previous year for assault This is one reason I believe the proceedure should be changed