The three condition a prosecutor must meet before charging a person with a crime is the following(1). A crime must have been committed. (2) The perpetrator has been identified. (3). The evidence supports the guilty verdict(Bohm & Haley, 2011). Prosecutors will choose not to take a case when there is no harm has taken place. Also, due to lack of resources and shortage of staff, a prosecutor have to make a decision to accept or dismiss a case. For example, if it is he or her first time committing a crime, a prosecutor want to be fair by imposing their own justice (Bohm & Haley, 2011).
Another reason prosecutors may choose not to prosecute a criminal case is a complaint about with the wrong motive. An example for the wrong motive is a wife that lied on her husband because she caught him cheating. Instead, she charges him with abusing her. A prosecute may decide not to charge her husband with abuse. However, there a more sensitive case such as a child that been rape. The case can be dismissed if the victim refuses to testify. The prosecutor can decline the case due to the mental state of the child. Instead, the defendant is sent to a mental facility (Bohm & Haley, 2011)
…show more content…
A prosecutor could mishandle his or her discretion for personal gain if greed becomes a factor. There could be innocent people being charged with crimes that they did not commit in order for the prosecutor to become a public
This requires the prosecutor to contemplate and analyze the thought process and the psychological state of the person during the time of the crime. The conclusions of the motivation behind the accused actions is drawn from the evidence that is collected from the case. It also is a term used to refer to the removal of the stigma between murder and punishment, and the moral character of the accused.
Standard of proof in Australia, the prosecutor must prove evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
When a person is accused of a crime, it is the responsibility of a judge to deem them competent to stand trial, mentally unstable to at the time of their trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity. This was something that was highly disputed during and after the case of John Salvi. John Salvi was an anti-abortionist of strong Catholic faith who shot and killed two people in attacks at Planned Parenthood clinics.
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
This trial was between a group called the Mau Mau and Great Britain. Great Britain colonized Kenya in 1895. Great Britain's colonization of Kenya had major effects, good and bad.But in the early 1900’s, the Kenyans wanted independence. They formed a independence group called the Mau Mau. The Mau Mau were mostly made up of a tribe called the Kikuyu. As they tried peaceful protests and demonstrations, the Mau Mau were usually attacked by the British. Britain believed in order to stop the Mau Mau from their independence movement and the violence they were causing on the Britain's, Britain needed to use force. The purpose of this trial was not to make a decision about if Britain's violence was justifiable or not, but to figure out if the Mau Maus
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
Each position in criminal justice holds power and responsibility, and therefore, it is very important that people in those positions do not abuse it. Unethical behavior in the criminal justice system takes away trust and respect from authority, and as a consequence, the law is more easily disregarded if the people lack faith in the system. It can, also, contribute to crime and/or cause citizens to not report crimes. Society should have indubitable confidence in the men and women of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement officers violating even the smallest rule could lead to more serious infractions.
Therefore, under these ethical standards, prosecutors cannot file charges if there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, they also do not file if it is not in the public interest to do so. This is what makes the possibilities limitless; however, three key factors also play a part in determining which cases to prosecute. If prosecutors follow these three factors in determining cases then the contradiction of limitless discretion and high ethical standards should be remedied for others. These are factors that should be followed are as followed: the seriousness and nature of the offense, the offender’s culpability, and the likelihood of being able to obtain a conviction at a trial. “Ethical conduct, then, must be the core of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal justice system” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Therefore, even though prosecutors have almost limitless discretion in their decisions, they still must
Prosecutorial misconduct is when a prosecutor wrongfully convicts a defendant based on information he or she may keep concealed from a judge and/or jury. Ask the average citizen, and they are totally unaware that such a thing ever happens. The public is often persuaded to believe that all prosecutors are honorable people who are committed to ethics, justice, and upholding the law. But prosecutorial misconduct and misdeeds happen, and they occur more frequently than anyone would imagine. Judge Konzinski, stated to the Washington Post, “Prosecutorial misconduct is a particularly difficult problem to deal with because so much of what prosecutors do is secret. If a prosecutor fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, who is to know? Or if a prosecutor delays disclosure of evidence helpful to the defense until the defendant has accepted an unfavorable plea bargain, no one will be the wiser.” No wonder society is naive to the prosecutorial misconduct that transpire
The attorney’s office of the prosecutor is usually the one’s who decide whether charges should
Reaching epidemic proportions and spreading like a disease, prosecutorial misconduct has cut across geographic and socio-economic areas with the effect of infecting the criminal justice system (Lawless, 2008). Prosecutorial misconduct takes place when a prosecutor breaks the law or code of professional ethics during the prosecution stage. Legal and ethical violations can weaken the conformity to the law and rules that are to be followed within the criminal justice system (Cromwell, P. F., Dunham, R. G., & Palacios, W. R., 1997). In this paper, existing research focused on factors related to prosecutorial misconduct will be presented. This paper will also examine potential remedies that exist to confront prosecutorial misconduct.
...caseloads, and more often than most realize they may plea-bargain a case that in fact should be prosecuted. I have no intentions of trying to judge their actions, simply because I truly appreciate the position they are in.”
The Selection, Training and Role of Magistrates in the English Legal System Lay magistrates are unqualified, part-time and unpaid profesionals who are chosen to serve in the magistrates court, yet they deal with the vast majority of cases in the legal system. They do not hear cases on their own but sit as a bench or panel of two or three other magistrates. The use of such unqualified people to judge cases is open to criticism. Magistrates sit in a magistrates court, usually in a bench of three.
If most of the defense attorneys had lost their cases with this judge with this prosecutor but won most of the cases with another judge and prosecutor I will then request a new judge in order to provide my defendant a fair trial. This decision will create animosity and if the judge refuses it could jeopardize the outcome of the case however, I will prove that there is something suspicious going on between the prosecutor and the judge because I will have the past defense attorneys to defend my stand. If most of the defense attorneys had no problem with the judge and the prosecutor in their case then I will just suspect that they are just having a normal dinner without their
The prosecutor has the most important influence in the courtroom. The prosecutor represents the people, society. The prosecutors are there to make sure that the criminal is prosecuted and that the victim is getting justice for the crime that was committed against them, and to protect them against prosecution themselves. The prosecutors are the ones that make the plea bargains, if they so choose to do so. The prosecutor also has a ton of things that they have to make sure they do. They have to decide what evidence needs to be addressed in court, ...