Homeland Security and Criminal Procedures

Homeland Security and Criminal Procedures

The primary role of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect citizens of the United States against terrorist activities. To ensure that the Department achieves this goal, the department enjoys unique powers that have been taunted to violate basic human rights. The power to conduct searches without a warrant and detaining accused persons for long periods violates basic human rights enshrined in the constitution. However, amendments to the constitution have ensured that the Department observes basic human rights in its operations. The only time the Department is allowed to infringe basic human rights is when they conduct operations intent to apprehend a terrorist suspect. Further, basic human rights have been protected by the inception of the criminal justice system. This ensures that certain predetermined procedures are followed during apprehension and conviction of accused persons. A key feature of the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence till proven guilty. This places the burden of proof on law enforcers and the plaintiff. Consequently, the perception of the public on how the Department handles criminal procedures in security matters have changed for the better.
Homeland Security and Criminal Procedures
Homeland security plays a critical role in the protection of the United States against terrorism. The department enjoys unique powers absolving it from observing certain laws that protect basic human rights.

Thus, the operations of the department have attracted public cry where the department has been reported of infringing basic human rights. This report is to examine the relationship between the Homeland Security and criminal procedures involved in handling security matters.
Relationship between Homeland Security and Criminal Laws or Procedures
Criminal law is the aspect of law concerned with crime. It regulates human conduct and specifies activities that are likely to destroy property or threaten the welfare of people. The criminal procedure entails the process through which criminal law is implemented. Although criminal procedure varies among states, a common criterion is that it commences with a criminal charge and eventually the accused is either convicted or acquitted (Chen, Wang & Zeng, 2004). Homeland Security is a department of the United States federal government charged with the responsibility of ensuring public security. 9/11 attacks led to the creation of homeland security. Its primary roles entail countering terrorism, ensuring border security and disaster mitigation. The USA PATRIOTIC Act was also enacted nearly at the same period as the inception of the homeland security with the former intended to suppress terrorism after the occurrence of 9/11 (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016).
The PATRIOTIC Act stretches the powers of law enforcement agencies, which could be viewed as a violation of basic human rights. For instance, the PATRIOTIC Act allows law enforcement agencies to carry out searches without warrants. It also allows law enforcers to detain persons suspected of terrorism for long periods (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). The authorization of law enforcers to conduct searches without warrants contravenes United States Constitutional Amendment IV. The detention of accused persons for a long period contravenes United States Constitutional Amendment VI. Homeland security in their operations to counter terrorism heavily rely on the PATRIOTIC Act due to the congruity of interest – countering terrorism (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). Thus, the relationship between Homeland security and criminal laws or procedures can be deduced to be strained. This is true since Homeland Security basing their powers on the PATRIOTIC Act tend to contravene basic human rights protected by criminal laws and procedures (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016).
Significance of the Homeland Security to the Current Society
The Homeland Security is charged with the responsibility of protecting people living in the United States from terrorist activities. The department was created after the occurrence of 9/11 to prevent similar terrorist attacks from happening in future (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). Homeland Security engages varied members of the society – from families, the private sector to local governments – to empty terrorist threats (Chen, Wang & Zeng, 2004). The approach adopted by the department entails devoting as many resources are possible towards prevention and preparedness. This helps people to shift from leading a life of fear to a life of preparedness. Homeland Security has also taken a lead role in detecting terrorist threats at transportation terminals to cushion American people from terrorism.
The country’s borders are protected by the Homeland Security. The department not only deploys officers to patrol the border but also deploys officers to control the country’s air and sea ports (Chen, Wang & Zeng, 2004). This is necessary to prevent criminals from illegally entering the country. The department arrests and deports millions of illegal immigrants annually. The department actively patrols the country’s border to Mexico to frustrate the smuggling of drugs, cash and weapons.
The Homeland Security is also charged with the responsibility of disaster prevention and management (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). Occasionally the United States is affected by Hurricanes, Tornadoes or floods. In the recent past, the United States has suffered HIN1 flu outbreak. H1N1 flu outbreak was mitigated through the collaborative effort of the Homeland Security and the federal government.
Effects of the Present State of the Law on the Police
Police power entails the privileges granted to law enforcers enabling them to enforce law and order for the betterment of the society. Law enforcers are allowed to compel people to obey criminal, and civil laws provided the measures adopted by law enforcers do not contravene basic human rights. Police can use various techniques, namely legal sanctions, coercion and inducement to ensure that the public complies with the stipulated laws (Chen, Wang & Zeng, 2004). The due process entails the legal requirement that law enforcement agencies must not infringe all the rights owed to a person. Due process regulates the power of police officers and protects the rights of the public. Police laws are the rules and regulations concerned with the behavior of law enforcement agencies. These laws put forward a framework guiding the conduct of police officers as well as how law enforcers can monitor their own. A majority of these laws pertain to issues such as police misconduct, police brutality, and corruption (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016).
The responsibility to maintain law and order is bestowed on police officers in any civilized country. Therefore, it is the duty of police officers to facilitate compliance with criminal laws, mitigate civil disorder and offer protection to people and property. To achieve this goal, the Constitution bestows certain unique powers to police officers that do not resonate well with the public. For instance, police officers are allowed to use force when preventing criminal behavior and the power to impose fine on offenders (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). Police officers may be tempted to stretch these privileges leading to the grievous violation of basic human rights thus it is necessary to monitor their operations. Police laws, as well as the due process, strike a just balance between the powers of a police officer and basic human rights of the public. For instance, police officers are restricted from beating confessions out of suspects. Similarly, suspects are protected by the Constitution from such treatment (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016).
Effects of the Present State of the Law on Citizens
On the one hand, the present state of law has enabled citizens to enjoy justice. The rule of law is based on fixed principles which ensure that individual judgment does not impede justice from being administered. The law is clear on most cases thus judges are not expected to be influenced by opinion when issuing a verdict. For instance, in The Department of Homeland Security v. McLean, justice was administered to McLean through a careful consideration of the rule of law (Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean). While Homeland Security argued that McLean had contravened rules and regulations restricting its employees from sharing confidential information with third parties, the Court of Appeal declared that McLean was protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Since the Department of Homeland Security was not satisfied with this ruling, they appealed to the Supreme Court, and their case was considered for hearing. This shows that the rule of law has facilitated the administration of justice to citizens. McLean was reinstated as an air marshal when the DHS lost their appellate case (Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean). Consequently, justice was administered whereby Mclean was reinstated to his job whereby this would not have materialized in the absence of the rule of law.
On the other hand, the present state of the law in the United States has led to the violation of the basic human rights to a certain extent. Laws are continually being enacted in response to emerging issues. In this light, the PATRIOTIC Act was enacted after the occurrence of the 9/11 (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). The PATRIOTIC Act grants law enforcers certain unique powers that contravene basic human rights. For instance, the Act allows law enforcers to conduct searches without warrants and to detain suspects for long periods. This is against provisions in the Constitution protecting people from unauthorized searches and the right to speedy trials (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). Therefore, a section of the present laws has led to the infringement of the basic human rights of American people granted in the constitution.
Effects of the Present State of the Law on Justice
The criminal justice system in the United States encompasses the agencies and processes established by the federal and state governments to mitigate criminal behavior and punish offenders. Crimes perpetrated within states are handled by state governments while crimes perpetrated on federal property and in multiple states are handled by the federal government (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). The criminal justice system has been a step forward towards the administration of justice in the United States even though the criminal justice system also has drawbacks.
A positive effect of the criminal justice system is the presumption of innocence. An accused person is held innocent until proven guilty in the courts of law. This places the burden of proof on the accusers which ensures people are not wrongfully convicted (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). The presumption of innocence also ensures that the focus of judges and juries is focused on the pertinent issue – whether the plaintiff has submitted substantial evidence that the accused has perpetrated the alleged acts.
Another positive effect of the criminal justice system is its stance on self-incrimination. The Constitution protects the accused from not only answering leading queries, but also articulating statements likely to promote their incarceration. The government is restricted by the right against self-incrimination from forcing any individual to give evidence likely to be used against them in a court of law (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). Further, the amendment points out that any evidence gathered through this process is not actionable in a court of law. The amendment protects an accused person from serving as a witness in a case that they are the defendant. This is vital to compel the plaintiff to find witnesses who will testify in court as well as substantial evidence showing that the accused is linked to the alleged acts.
A negative effect of the criminal justice system lies in its slow and cumbersome nature (CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016). The judge acts a neutral party whose work is to impartially evaluate the evidence presented and cannot hasten the litigation process. Procedural rules in criminal and civil cases also slow the litigation process. Further, the criminal justice system is slowed by the availability of appellate powers to the accused. This can lead to the case extending for many years before the final verdict is declared.
It is evident that the perception of the public on the criminal procedures followed by the Homeland Security in handling security matters have changed for the better. Apart from operations intended to apprehend suspected terrorist, the law requires that the department observes the stipulated laws. That is, the law enforcers are prohibited from conducting searches without warrants, and accused persons should be granted speedy trials. However, the homeland security should increasingly observe basic human rights in its operations to foster public confidence in the department.

References
Chen, H., Wang, F. Y., & Zeng, D. (2004). Intelligence and security informatics for homeland
security: information, communication, and transportation. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 5(4), 329-341.
CRJ 120 Criminal Law & Procedure; FALL 2016
Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913, 574 U.S., 190 L. Ed. 2d 771 (2015).