When I first learned about the process of arrest to conviction, I realized that most of what I thought I

knew came from crime shows or social media. The reality, though, is far more procedural—and a lot
more human. This paper aims to break down the steps from the moment someone is arrested all the
way to their conviction, showing the balance our legal system tries to maintain between justice and
fairness. I wanted to explain it not just as a student but as someone trying to truly understand how the
system works.

Everything usually starts with an incident—maybe a robbery, a bar fight, or even something digital like
cyber fraud. The police are alerted and begin gathering evidence, talking to witnesses, or reviewing
CCTV footage. This part may seem quiet and behind-the-scenes, but it's where a lot of heavy lifting
happens. It’s kind of like putting together a puzzle without the box image. Investigators need enough
pieces to form a reasonable belief (what they call “probable cause”) that someone committed the crime.

Depending on the situation, the police can arrest a suspect in two main ways. With a warrant, they
must first go to a judge and show enough evidence for an arrest order. This usually happens when the
suspect isn’t caught on the spot. But there are also cases where officers don’t need a warrant—like if
they literally see someone commit a crime, say, someone snatching a phone in broad daylight (called in
flagrante delicto), or if they’re chasing someone they believe just did something illegal (hot pursuit).
Either way, the person must be told why they’re being arrested and reminded of their rights—especially
the right to remain silent and to get a lawyer. I think this is one of the most important parts of the
process because it protects the person from abuse or intimidation.

After the arrest, the suspect is taken to the police station for booking—this includes fingerprinting,
taking photos (like mugshots), and recording basic details. I imagine this is probably one of the most
nerve-wracking moments for anyone, guilty or not. From here, the police submit their report to the
prosecutor, who decides whether the case should move forward. If the evidence isn’t strong enough,
the case might be dropped. But if it is, the prosecutor files a criminal complaint in court.

If the arrest was made without a warrant, the suspect undergoes an inquest proceeding—kind of
like a mini-hearing to check if their arrest was legal and if there’s reason to hold them longer. If they
were arrested with a warrant or if they aren’t yet in custody, a more detailed preliminary
investigation happens instead. This step gives both sides a chance to present documents and
affidavits. What stood out to me here is that this step allows the accused to speak up before the court
even gets involved—an early form of defense that I didn’t know existed before.
Once the case officially reaches the court, the accused faces an arraignment. This is where they’re told
exactly what they’re being accused of, in a language they understand, and they must enter a
plea—guilty or not guilty. I find this part symbolic. It’s the moment the system fully acknowledges
the person as the accused, and from here, everything becomes more formal and public. A guilty plea
might fast-track the case, but courts often still ask for evidence to confirm it wasn’t made out of
pressure or confusion.

Before the actual trial starts, both sides meet in a pre-trial conference to lay everything out—what
evidence they’ll use, what witnesses they’ll call, and whether they might settle the case or go for plea
bargaining. Think of this like a planning session to avoid wasting court time. I’ve come to appreciate
how this stage, although often skipped in TV dramas, plays a big role in keeping the trial smooth and
focused.

This is the part we usually imagine when we think of “court.” The prosecution goes first, trying to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. They present their evidence and
witnesses, and the defense gets to cross-examine them. Afterward, the defense gets their turn to
present their side. It's a slow, technical process—but it's also where the truth is supposed to come out.
What I learned here is how crucial every small detail can be. One contradicting statement or missing
document can shift the entire outcome.

After hearing both sides, the judge reviews everything and delivers a verdict. If the accused is found
guilty, the court imposes a sentence depending on the crime. But if they’re found not guilty, they’re
cleared and released. Either side can appeal if they think something went wrong, but if no appeal is
filed, the conviction becomes final and executory. Personally, I think this step brings mixed
emotions—closure for some, injustice for others. It reminded me how important fairness and proper
process are in every single phase.

Walking through each step made me realize that the justice system is more than just courts and
judges—it’s about people, procedures, and the constant tug-of-war between truth and protection of
rights. From the moment someone is arrested to the final judgment, each step is designed not just to
punish, but to make sure that punishment—if given—is deserved. Understanding this helped me see
law not just as rules, but as something deeply tied to fairness in real life.