The media often portrays a negative image of lawyers and judges. The way that lawyers and judges act in media can be described as selfish justice. The meaning of selfish justice refers to the lack of concern that lawyers and judges can have regarding the fairness of a trial and the consequences that a ruling can have on another human life. To clarify, in most crime television shows and even in reality, an innocent person can easily be found guilty in court if the district attorney has enough evidence to prove the defendant crime and if the defense lawyer is not able to counter the evidence. However, many district attorneys as represented on television do not exhibit honesty when it comes to presenting evidence. For example, many episodes showcase …show more content…
Most judges ignore and misunderstand the law or the rules of the courtroom. In these show, judges tend also allow irrelevant evidence even when they know it’s not right. For example, in the TV show “How To Get Away With Murder”, Annalise Keating, the law professor and defense lawyer of the case, obtains an illegal document to disprove the witness testimony in the first episode. However, the prosecution lawyer was not familiar with the document. When he could not find the document in the case file, he objected as the document was not part of the “discovery file.” Thus, it was illegally obtained evidence. Ms. Keating then explains to the judge that she obtained the document from the attorney who had been previously representing her client. The judge seemed to agree with Ms. Keating’s argument, even after the prosecution lawyer claimed that Ms. Keating obtained the document illegally. Although the document was obtained illegal, the judge still allowed the document to be treated as evidence. This relates to selfish justice because the judge has chosen to bypass an important rule of the justice system. The article of “How to Tell a Judge He Screwed Up” by Robert Gettleman features a judge who talks about his experiences in the U.S. District Court in Chicago Illinois, and how judges often make mistakes when they preside over a trial. While the judge in “How to Get Away with Murder” does not admit to making …show more content…
Most clients don’t want justice but instead they want their lawyers to settle their case so they can be compensated in a short amount of time. In the same episode of “The Defenders”,Morelli and Kaczmaric also represented Sonia, an Asian woman who had suffered from an overdose of Epinephrine. Morelli and Kaczmaric discovered a case that was similar to Sonia’s and thus, would be able to support her lawsuit. If Morelli and Kaczmaric won the case, then Sonia would not need to go to trial. Instead she would have received a compensation check for her damages. However, Sonia doesn’t agree with the lawyer’s decisions because she needs to pay her medical bills and personal expenses. Thus, she wanted her case to go to trial first. Because Sonia didn’t agree with her lawyer’s decision, she decided to hire another lawyer to represent her case. As a result, her new lawyer lost her case as there was not enough evidence to settle her case. In the article of “Getting What You Deserve” by Jim McElhaney, a Hostetler distinguished scholar in trial practice at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Cleveland, describes how lawyers are responsible for explaining to their clients that they need to be fair on their decisions. McElhaney states “one of the most difficult jobs of precession can be trying to convince your own client to be reasonable” determines how clients are not always fair in agreeing with
Justice and perception are words that often overlap. What is seen as justice by one generation can be seen a hateful act of violence by the next. The point is, justice can only truly be construed by the one perceived as the victim. In A Thousand Splendid Suns a picture of sorrow and desperation that grasp Afghanistan is painted as the backdrop to the story. Mariam, a harami, was taught by her mother to endure. That her sole purpose as a woman was to endure the suffering that a man causes. Then, one day, she takes justice into her own hands and kills her abusive husband to save her sister wife and only true companion in her life. This crime leads to her execution; even her final moments a sense of purpose fulfills her because she knows that by sacrificing her life and saving Laila’s, Laila can start anew.
The job of a criminal lawyer is quite difficult. Whether on the defense or the prosecution, you must work diligently and swiftly in order to persuade the jury. Some lawyers play dirty and try to get their client off of the hook even though they are guilty without a doubt. Even though the evidence is all there, the prosecution sometimes just can’t get the one last piece of the puzzle to make the case stick and lock the criminal up. Such is the case Orenthal James Simpson.
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
It is more difficult for governments to provide adequate salaries to public defense lawyers and the result is that these lawyers are often more inexperienced (Fairfax, 2013). Since the amount of defendants who are unable to afford private counsel has increased, public defense lawyers are also overworked. It is not uncommon for public defense lawyers to juggle hundreds of cases simultaneously (Fairfax, 2013). In other words, the system is unable to handle the volume and has therefore resorted to avoiding the trial process whenever
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
When the emotions of lifelong bitterness and disappoint emerge from verdict of a court case something is profoundly wrong. The American justice system is not completely designed to serve justice but instead it gives attorneys an attempt to use creative ways to manipulate the everyday individuals involved in a jury into thinking they are fighting for the truth. From the time the process of voir dire begins the game
Plea bargains are highly prevalent in the popular television series Law and Order. If a random episode is chosen, there is a high chance that lawyers in the show have offered a plea bargain. While many people would believe that media skews the public’s understanding of how often plea bargains occur, however, this is actually an appropriate representation. According to Heumann, approximately 10% of criminal cases actually continue on to trial (Heumann, 1975). Similarly, as stated by Menkel-Meadow, plea bargains are the reason why there may be congestion in the courts, but a low number of criminals are actually jailed (Menkel-Meadow, 2005).
The problem of judicial corruption in United States is immense. The Sixth Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights refers to the right to a speedy, fair and public trial. Unfortunately, our judicial system does not always maintain these rights. The United States judicial system is very corrupt and most of our country’s citizens do not know how corrupt it actually is. When thinking about the judicial system, words that come to mind are justice, morality, and fairness. Sadly, these words are not accurate descriptions of this system. Correct depictions of today’s judicial system are corruption, rigged courts, extortion, and phony trials. Our legal system does not bring truth or justice to our courtrooms. Overcoming this corruption is not easy for the average citizen or anyone who is not in on the “game”.
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom.
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
With producing reality shows comes producing inaccuracies in portrayals in order to reach as many viewers and gain as high ratings as possible every week with each new episode. Every day life is boring, yet people tend to be attracted to the relatable shows that portray real life in eccentric ways – ways that they believe could be imitated by the average person. In many cases, these shows could remain harmless, as it is entertainment. No matter how crude or erroneous, it is just television. However, what happens when these sources of amusement actually start being damaging? Research has shown that crime shows like the ever popular CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have started becoming significantly detrimental to criminal cases, influencing a juror's perception of what should realistically be going on with acquittal rates and wrongful convictions, but researchers have also started to find a rising fault in the prosecution, using this false perception to their advantage.
In the criminal justice system psychologist play several roles, but in the jury selection process they serve as a consultant. This essay will provide three instances of psychological concepts and illustrate how they are applied to the determination of juries. The essay will also address a common ethical obligation confronting psychologist in the areas of corrections, law enforcement, court systems, and academia.
In conclusion, the popularity of the show Judge Judy can be linked to individual’s aspiration to see a real courtroom proceeding, because she is known for her blunt behavior and being one of toughest judges in New York City (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). She is very sarcastic and opinionated, which makes her very entertaining to watch on television. In my opinion, the way she conducts her cases by bringing justice and humor may influence individuals to want to see if this type of behavior is conducted during actual court proceedings. Although, shows such as Judge Judy, are entertaining they do not show how actually court proceeding are handle, which can be misleading to viewers. In actually court proceedings, the judge doesn’t not conduct themselves
There is no such thing as justice - in or out of court. Clarence Darrow i