Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
The case of Mapp v. Ohio was a landmark ruling in the United States that helped solidify the fourth amendment protection rights against unwarranted searches and seizures by prohibiting any evidence obtained by law enforcement officials without a valid warrant to be used in criminal cases both at the state and federal courts in 1961 (US Supreme Court, 2011) . In 1957, law enforcement officials suspected Dollree Mapp to be part of a gambling syndicate and that she was entertaining a bombing suspect (US Supreme Court, 2011) . Based on these allegations, law enforcement officers approached Mapp as her residence and wanted to search the suspect's house. When the Cleveland police reached the house, Mapp did not allow them into the home stating that they should have a search warrant as per her Fourth Amendment right. The Cleveland police returned a second time, with what they purported to be a valid search warrant and forced their way into the suspect's house (US Supreme Court, 2011) . Mapp was not allowed to inspect the warrant or contact her attorney, who was present at the scene.
The Cleveland police were unable to find the individual suspected of bombing after the search, but instead, they found obscene literature and photos that were deemed illegal at that time (Benedict, 2006) . Mapp was charged and imprisoned for possessing obscene materials without the search warrant being produced. Through the Supreme court, the case received an appeal where Mapp's defense failed to argue that the constitutional prohibition against the use of illegally obtained should be applied in state court. However, the ACLU of Ohio based their argument on this point as a "friend of the court" (Benedict, 2006) . In 1961, the supreme court ruled that any information obtained by searches and seizures outside the confines of the law by law enforcement is not admissible in court as they violated the Fourth Amendment. The Mapp v. Ohio ruling was controversial as it required courts to ensure that evidence placed before them was legally obtained (Benedict, 2006) . The policy established on the Mapp v. Ohio case came to be referred to as "the exclusionary rule" which acts as a vital remedy against improper searches and seizures.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon accused of breaking and entering with the intention to commit a misdemeanor, which under Florida law is a felony (US Supreme Court, 2011) . Once Gideon's trial began, he presented himself in court without legal counsel and requested the judge to appoint him one because he was poor. The judge denied Gideon's appeal on the basis that under Florida law, only indigent defendants charged with capital offenses reserved the right to be provided with counsel (US Supreme Court, 2011) . Gideon was forced to defend his case, and upon loosing, he was condemned to five years in a Florida prison. In prison, Gideon resorted to learning and educating himself about the law as he believed that he had been wrongfully convicted besides being denied his Sixth Amendment rights (US Supreme Court, 2011) . Gideon petitioned the United States supreme court through a habeas corpus, arguing that he had been denied a fair trial because the state had refused to appoint legal counsel to represent him.
The Supreme court, in a unanimous decision, overturned Gideon's conviction and agreed that he had not been given n a fair trial. The Supreme court declared that states needed to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants in order to ensure a fair trial. The court also overruled part of the Betts v. Brady ruling that claimed that the provisions of the Sixth Amendment rights to the guarantee of counsel were not a fundamental right. The court concluded that the Sixth Amendment must apply to both federal and state courts.
Differences between Criminal Law and Civil Law
In the United States legal justice system, criminal law and civil law serve different purposes. The sole purpose of civil law is to help in resolving disputes and providing compensation to an individual who has been hurt by someone else's acts. Civil law, therefore, deals with disputes between two different entities (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . On the other hand, criminal law seeks to prevent or eliminate undesirable behavior in society as well as punish the individuals who commit acts that deemed undesirable by society. The undesirable acts are an individual's wrongdoings that have been committed against the state or the federal government (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . In civil law, the aggrieved party or individual is the one who brings the lawsuit to a court of law, while in criminal law, it is the state, local, or federal government that files charges. A distressed individual may file charges, but the federal government decides on whether the charges to filed are criminal or not. Criminal law violations are considered crimes against the federal government, and they are termed as violations against public law rather than private law (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . On the contrary, criminal law is a body that concerns itself with cases that only deal with private law. In criminal law, the burden of proof is placed on the federal government as they must prove that the perpetrator is guilty while in criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner, and then the respondent must counter the evidence tabled by the complainants.
The Reasoning Behind these Cases and Laws
Although the rule of law has been universally recognized as a fundamental value across the world, there is no agreement on what constitutes "the rule of law" in democratic governments (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . The law in the United States incorporates and grants the principles of liberty and individualism ever known to man. These laws were asserted in the American Declaration of Independence so that people could have certain inherent freedoms and rights such as property ownership, life, the pursuit of happiness, and liberty. However, these rights have been gifted by God and nature, and not by acts of governments. Besides providing guidelines, these cases and laws help in informing people's understanding of how the established guidelines and principles work depending on the jurisdictions that they apply (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . These cases and statutes deepen the knowledge of the masses on the instructions or provisions when the courts interpret specific guidelines that may be unclear or have been in the past wrongly interpreted, or when the courts make decisions on how the provisions of the law should be applied to a case with a specific set of facts (Dansby, 2017) . These laws and cases also provide an understanding of the people on how the system works. Other than looking at the provisions stipulated in the constitution, people should also look at the cases to which these laws have been applied in order to interpret and apply the laws correctly.
The Influences and Outcomes of these Laws on the American Criminal Justice System
Four decades ago, the Alabama police force was broadcasted on national television when they used fire hoses and police dogs against black and white civil rights protestors. Three decades ago, Arkansas prison officials were found to have been secretly mudding prisoners. At the same time, it was also discovered that police officials were executing seven black citizens for every white citizen killed by the police (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . Today, the criminal justice system is far less from being perfect, but it has become more effective in preventing crime and being more diverse (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . Regardless, these achievements seem to have little impact on the attitudes of Americans towards the criminal justice system. Understanding this paradox of progress that has resulted in better results and poor opinions in the work involved in attaining better results is central to improving public trust and confidence in the American criminal justice system (US Supreme Court, 2011) . Although the pace of change has been slow in the criminal justice system, these laws and cases have propelled the American criminal justice system towards greater effectiveness. Towards the close of the 20 th century, the American criminal justice system based on the findings and experiences from previous laws and cases was more focused on fairness and in maintaining the rule of law in both civil and criminal matters (US Supreme Court, 2011) . The criminal justice system is far from being perfect, but through integrated efforts, more decent, egalitarian practices and values will build a more trustworthy system.
Impacts of the Cases on the Criminal Justice System
The Gideon v. Wainwright supreme court ruling in 1963 had substantial impact on the American criminal justice system because the verdict made it mandatory for state courts to provide the right to counsel rule that federal courts had to follow (Pleasence & Balmer, 2018) . From then on, people with no legal background or were less fortunate to hire legal counsel were no longer required to defend themselves against crimes that the criminal justice system deemed unworthy to court-appointed counsel.
The Mapp v. Ohio ruling led to the formulation of the exclusionary rule that held police in violation of the Fourth Amendment that illegally seized evidence without a warrant signed by a judge may not be used against the defendant in a court law. The exclusionary rules acts to protect citizens against improper or undesirable searches that are conducted by law enforcement when they sound not.
References
Benedict, M. (2006). The Blessings of Liberty: A Concise History of the Constitution of the United States .
Houghton Mifflin. Dansby, J. (2017). Rule of Law in the United States. Stability is one of the World’s Most Valued Commodities. International and Comparative Law Review , 17 (1), 147-165. https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2018-0006
Pleasence, P., & Balmer, N. (2018). Measuring the Accessibility and Equality of Civil Justice. Hague Journal on The Rule of Law , 10 (2), 255-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0079-0
US Supreme Court. (2011). Search and Seizure Law: Historic Supreme Court Cases (LandMark Case L . LandMark Publications.
