CRIMINAL JUSTICE

 
By:

 
Question & Answer

Professor

Institution

Location

Date

0|Page
 Answer 1

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution gives protection to citizens

from governmental inquiries, searches, and seizures. The Fourth Amendment, on the other

end, does not protect individuals from all unjustified seizures and searches; it merely protects

individuals from those who are ruled unreasonable by the legislation. The balance of two key

concerns determines if a certain form of search is deemed acceptable in the legal sense.

Solely on a single side of the spectrum is the violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment

rights. Legitimate government objectives, such as public health and safety, would be on the

flip end of the spectrum. Thus, the citizen's rights to be safe and protected in individual

residences, documents, as well as consequences against unreasonable search queries and

seizures must therefore not be infringed, and also no warrants must therefore be issued until

there is reasonable suspicion, as evidenced by affirmation or oath, and specifically trying to

describe this same place to be started searching and the individuals or aspects to just be

seized.)

The Fourth Amendment, as we all know, strikes an equilibrium between

governmental authority to influence criminality and personal freedom to autonomy and

confidentiality. For striking proper equilibrium, the Fourth Amendment prohibits solely

"unreasonable" unreasonable search and seizure by public authorities, not private citizens'

acts. The main issue is whether or not private persons must be legally permitted to gather

evidence regarding somebody and submit it over to the authorities (Cortina et al., 2019). As a

rule of thumb, whatever a private citizen discovers via any unreasonable searches, instead of

a law enforcement officer, is relevant to the case. However, if the private individual operated

on behalf of the federal administration, the evidence would almost certainly be suppressed,

precisely as though it had been discovered by the police (Cortina et al., 2019). 

1|Page
 So, regardless of how accusatory, unlawfully acquired testimony, in my opinion,

should never be used in a court hearing. However, it is reasonable to permit a defendant to

contest evidence brought over individuals whether they demonstrate or show that perhaps the

pieces of evidence were acquired illegally (Cortina et al., 2019), as this activity breaches their

constitutionally protected rights.

Answer 2

Following is the case of Harry Styles being a victim of robbery or burglary. On the

14th of February, 2020, the pop sensation Harry Styles was allegedly burgled at knifepoint in

north London following a night out (Donnelly, 2020). After being accosted by a robber

adjacent to a club on Spaniards Road, Hampstead, the former One Direction vocalist, 27,

turned along cash. Harry Styles thus was reportedly stopped by the robber who frightened

him using a knife. Harry Styles being the victim wasn't harmed, but he was robbed of money.

There have been no indictments, and the investigation is still underway (Donnelly, 2020). A

representative for London's Metropolitan Police acknowledged to Yahoo news detectives

began looking into an allegation of a knifepoint burglary in the vicinity (Donnelly, 2020), but

avoided naming the putative victim other than to describe him as a "guy in his 20s." 

The "Lifestyle Hypotheses," one of the most important victimization theories, could

be correlated to Harry Styles' situation. Victims placed themselves in jeopardy, as per the

hypothesis (Gray,2018), by indulging in high-risk activities like venturing out late in the

evening, residing in a high-crime neighborhood, and interacting with high-risk

contemporaries. So, in the instance of Harry Styles, Lifestyle exposure theory contends that

Harry's pop-star socioeconomic characteristics made him more vulnerable to criminal

victimization because his lifestyle outed him to hazardous scenarios such as nighttime

partying. As a result, it is the danger of being victimized, not the lifestyles themselves, that

2|Page
creates chances for victimization. According to the Lifestyle argument, Harry Styles was

mugged at knifepoint and became a victim of criminal acts as a result of his preferences and

lifestyle.

3|Page
 References 

Cortina, L. M., Rabelo, V. C., & Holland, K. J. (2018). Beyond blaming the victim: Toward a

more progressive understanding of workplace mistreatment. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 81-100. 

Donnelly, E. (2020). Harry Styles the victim of alleged robbery at knifepoint: Reports.

Retrieved 19 January 2022, from https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/harry-styles-

robbery-report-204342934.html?

guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_refer

rer_sig=AQAAAI95Axjby7RM92XYbNQ62UqPuJGusWe6TenXeEW73ncyWcDd

Md87I5dssKj98cdIzYcvVxzJS_kjFLvjj_0JRNGRavK7u7v0uMkriq2sZpxaAAgyepA

ImgPx_32xgF1rTC4wKKMHO32y2rExpN2k3WosiIyIJNT2LfC9FoHFsmKa

Gray, D. (2018). Collective Standing Under the Fourth Amendment. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 55,

77. 

                                   

4|Page