Others see a system that is stacked against defendants, one in which people, particularly the poor and underprivileged, are victimized by police misconduct, overzealous prosecutions, inadequate legal representation, and biased juries.
Though both are gross oversimplifications, each does have some merit.
For example, the United States is the only nation in the world that employs the so-called "exclusionary rule," a principle whereby most evidence improperly obtained by law enforcement is inadmissible against a defendant at trial.
Such an instance occurred last Tuesday when, in People v. Gavazzi, the New York Court of Appeals suppressed evidence of child pornography obtained from the defendant's home because of a clerical error in the search warrant.
Judge Robert S. Smith dissented, lamenting that the defendant would go free "because the constable has blundered."
That a guilty person should benefit so lavishly from police misconduct makes no sense.
While proponents of the exclusionary rule cite the need to deter such misconduct, this can be accomplished more appropriately by other devices, such as civil lawsuits or disciplinary action against the offending individuals.
The criticism of plea-bargains, on the other hand, is misplaced. In fact, prosecutors can and do benefit from them as much as defendants. Many a district attorney with a problematic case has strategically opted to accept a lesser plea from a defendant, with reduced or no jail time, rather than run the risk that he might be acquitted at trial.
Bear in mind, also, that constitutionally mandated speedy trial rules, coupled with congested court calendars, often force prosecutors to be very selective about when to forego plea negotiations in favor of taking a case to trial.
Those who maintain that the criminal-justice system is actually biased against defendants have the more persuasive case, although not necessarily for the reasons they routinely cite.
According to the Innocence Project, a non-profit legal clinic dedicated to exonerating those wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, DNA testing has already established the innocence of 301 incarcerated defendants, including 18 who served time on death row.
Detailed information about all known individuals who have been exonerated in the United States since 1989 has been compiled jointly by the University of Michigan Law School and Northwestern Law School.
As of now, the schools' National Registry of Exonerations places that number in excess of 1,020.
Based on these documented cases with gratifying outcomes, it's certainly reasonable to assume that thousands of less fortunate people have also been wrongfully convicted, many of them sentenced to prison and some even put to death for crimes that they didn't commit.
The two factors that are seen most frequently in cases of wrongful convictions are false confessions and mistaken eyewitness identification.
Inherently coercive under the best of circumstances, police interrogations become blatantly so when skilled questioners use a variety of tactics, including trickery and deceit, to overwhelm the will of the unwary and extract incriminating statements from them.
The Innocence Project reports that a solid 25 percent of those exonerated by DNA evidence had either made incriminating statements, given full confessions, or pleaded guilty. Which is why no person targeted by the police should ever open his mouth without first having obtained an attorney.
To the uninitiated, juries most definitely included, eyewitness identification may appear to be highly reliable evidence.
In reality, however, it's the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75 percent of convictions overturned through DNA testing.
On May 19, 1998, Staten Islander James O'Donnell was sentenced to 3 1/2 to 7 years in prison following his conviction by a state Supreme Court jury of sexually assaulting a Stapleton woman in Clove Lakes Park.
The woman had testified at trial that O'Donnell was "four inches in front of my face. I had to be blind [not to see him] considering he tried to choke me to death."
At another point she told the jury: "I saw his face at all times until I passed out. The whole face."
After spending more than two years in jail, O'Donnell was cleared when DNA evidence conclusively established that the woman had been mistaken.
What makes the O'Donnell conviction even more egregious is that jurors ignored substantial evidence pointing away from him as the perpetrator. Had they faithfully applied the reasonable doubt standard, they wouldn't have convicted him in the first place.
The celebrated premise of the criminal justice system in this country is that it's better that nine guilty people go free, than one innocent person be convicted.
It's implemented primarily by requiring prosecutors to prove the guilt of a defendant beyond all reasonable doubt.
When juries – and, in cases of bench trials, judges – ignore that core principle, they cease being a defendant's bulwark against injustice.
Instead, like false confessions and mistaken eyewitness testimony, they become complicit in its commission.
[Daniel Leddy's column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page. His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.]