Precedent and Causation in Law Enforcement

Table of Contents

Introduction
Summary of Precedent-Setting Cases
Impact on Law Enforcement Officers
Why Law Enforcement Should Understand Precedential Cases
Concurrence and Burden of Proof
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Consistency in the decisions made by judicial servants is vital since it portrays dependability and reliability of thought. The concept of precedent is based on judges making rulings based on past legal proceedings, primarily if covering similar issues (Ashwin, 2022). For instance, rulings enacted by higher courts must be followed by lower courts, which are instrumental in the common law. American law bases most of its structures on English laws, and the use of precedent is sometimes invoked in cases dating back almost 200 years (Ashwin, 2022). Common law precedent cases are decided on this formula unless the Supreme Court decides they are unconstitutional.

Precedent plays several crucial roles in criminal procedure and adjudicating common law cases. It maintains fairness and equity among the accused by ensuring similar cases follow the same pattern or laws. Thereby, citizens are certain of criminal procedure and gain confidence by witnessing successful repetitions of law case verdicts (Ashwin, 2022). Furthermore, precedent ensures the lower court reflects contemporary societal needs by adhering to Supreme Court stipulations. Moreover, previous legal rulings bind judges and attorneys to established law doctrines, effectively ensuring they discharge their duties diligently. Lastly, it conveniently saves court time since there is no need to re-establish an existing law, allowing jury members to proceed to the ruling. However, different legal systems apply the concept of precedence differently.

Summary of Precedent-Setting Cases

Causation identifies the relationship between resulting harm and the criminal mind of the offender. The United States v. Carroll Towing Co. case of 1944 involved the sinking of the Anna C barge on a Manhattan pier (Precedent-setting cases, 2021). While moored at Pier 52 with five other barges, the harbormaster ordered their reshuffle using the tugboat Carroll. The deckhand and harbormaster completed the task; however, Anna C came untied, drifted loose from the pier, and collided with a Navy Tanker. A hole punched into the ships body caused it to sink and lose its cargo. Anna Cs owner was found liable for not having someone present on board since they could have alerted authorities to the damage and gotten help offloading the cargo.

Similarly, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. establishes precedence in negligence cases that involve the manufacturer rather than the product seller. The plaintiff, Donald MacPherson, was injured when driving a car purchased at a retail dealer when it collapsed suddenly and threw him out (Precedent-setting cases, 2021). Upon investigation, the court revealed the cause to be a defective wheel whose material was questionable and whose spokes were evident of poor inspection standards. Whereas the manufacturer did not make the wheel, the court established that Buick Motor Co. did not conduct an inspection and was responsible for the finished product. Therefore, regardless if the wheel was manufactured elsewhere, the defendant was liable and responsible for inspecting the machine due to the accompanying degree of danger.

Impact on Law Enforcement Officers

If the facts of a case are like one previously adjudicated and decided upon, law enforcement must know its intricate details since it influences their actions. Law enforcement officers deal with arresting and detaining suspects and are, therefore, the first point of contact with criminals within the system. Established rulings save time and cost since they establish the requisite actions for a successful court case (Lewis, 2022). In an already overburdened criminal system, judicial officers must allocate legal, disciplinary, and rehabilitative measures to necessary individuals. Enforcement officers aware of precedent cases will adjust their actions to prevent an imminent arrest in favor of evidence collecting to make their case error-proof.

In this instance, the United States v. Carroll Towing Co. and MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. cases established negligence regarding owners and product manufacturers. The former has evolved common law cases regarding barge owners presence on their vessels at reasonable daylight hours to deal with arising problems. Furthermore, inspection is now necessary for manufacturing, especially in a modernized consumer society. Law enforcement officers can trace harmful products to their origin and assess whether the manufacturer operated responsibly. Items such as food and drugs are assessed under the Food and Drug Administration because of the degree of danger they present if found faulty.

Why Law Enforcement Should Understand Precedential Cases

The impact of precedential cases extends to every facet of society; legal, financial, social, and political. Law enforcement officers are responsible for effectively upholding the law and the principles each precedent upholds (Lewis, 2022). They must understand the relationship between the two and, more importantly, their impact because they help guide their actions in the field. Decisions made by higher courts reflect the practices, behavior, and customs of the people living at that time. Precedential cases, however, impact successive societies by creating binding doctrines that outline the principles each officer should practice and uphold when interacting with people.

Elements such as court unanimity, approval, and expert opinion provide an excellent precedential law foundation. They ingrain in enforcement officers the zeal to follow the approved procedure. The sequential process of presenting evidence before a fair jury is a dependable method of determining guilt (Lewis, 2022). Similarly, law enforcement officers should endeavor to follow strict rules based on previous cases because it fosters confidence in their actions. Precedential cases impact societys thought process, and utilizing outdated police procedures impedes the judicial process. Law officers with an acute understanding of precedential cases have a higher success rate due to their diligence and consistency.

Concurrence and Burden of Proof

An adversarial system establishes case facts by pitching the prosecution and defense against each other. It is advantageous because it is fair since the judge acts arbitrarily, and each fact is contested to prove its validity (Oraegbunam, 2019). Additionally, both parties are accorded their rights and allowed to support their positions, unlike an inquisitorial system. The police are afforded more power since the burden of proof relies heavily on the presented while maintaining fairness. However, since both sides are obliged to contest, the system may encourage deception to satisfy the burden of proof (Oraegbunam, 2019). Instead of evaluating the facts, the goal evolves into winning at all costs, resulting in injustice and verdicts based on arguments, not proof.

A factfinder cannot perceive the mind of an accused to determine how they acted during the commission of the crime. However, they rely on inferences or conclusions from the facts to determine such an end (Schmalleger & Hall, 2021). These inferences are based on the accuseds actions and the circumstances surrounding the act, such as the deadly weapon doctrine. Specifically, if the accuseds object is known to cause death or serious injury, their actions are deemed criminal.

Conclusion

The elements of concurrence are two-fold and require the intersection of the criminal act (actus rea) and the state of mind (mens rea). In the first instance, the man cannot be prosecuted for his wifes death because thoughts are not physical acts and require outward action to validate them in a criminal court. Similarly, he would not be prosecuted for planning the murder because they are like thoughts and should be accompanied by physical proof of the act. In the last instance, whereas his wife died in a car accident, he did not voluntarily contribute to the event and, therefore, is innocent of mens rea. The movement was entirely independent of his actions, making him innocent of prosecution.