According to Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall (2014), "prosecutorial discretion is a decision of a prosecutor to submit a charging document to a court, or to seek a grand jury indictment, or to decline to prosecute". (p. 204) In other words, it is when the prosecutor intentionally fails to mention a piece of evidence towards the defendant that can potentially free them of any charges. This behavior affects charging decisions, such as, Courts in the News, the case of Petros Bedi, he spent more than a decade in prison, because the prosecution knew a witness was paid in exchange for a testimony.(Siegel, Schmalleger, and Worrall, 2014, p. 210) Regardless of Petros Bedi criminal past, that does not mean he should be treated unfairly. Prosecutors
Read the posted case study about Benita Vasquez and discuss the following questions: 1. What are the clinical causes of death in the story? a. Senora Vasquez died because of uncontrolled diabetes, Infected wound and diffusing kidneys. With not well-controlled diabetes and acquiring an infected burn wound makes it harder for the patient to get treatment. Thus with the condition of the patient and her current social status, she is unable to afford the treatment and medications needed to alleviate her suffering.
For this assignment, I chose to interview JL Audio cofounder Lucio Proni. JL Audio is a consumer/professional audio manufacturer located in Miramar, Florida that produces speakers for boats, cars, and home sound systems. Lucio Proni is an engineer and cofounder of the company with his high school buddy Jim Birch. During the mid-1970’s when they were on their summer break from the University of Florida, Lucio and Jim decided to mess around with component speakers and wound up building home loudspeakers for fun. They worked out of a garage in Lucios home and showed some of their speakers to their friends and some. Later on, a few of them even bought some, so they built a couple more to sell on the flea market. Lucio’s early success inspired
He was claiming to be innocent at all times but he didn’t have a good legal representation, his lawyer never visit him in jail, as punishment he was in solitary confine for 2 years consecutives,
The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved
Linking this back to my previous statement, the accused needed to be trialed. The first problem that arises is the fact that the judges can rule how they please towards the accused. We all have times when we feel better than others and this can affect our reasoning as well as our attitude towards certain aspects of life. This statement also applies to the judges when they are in court. Naturally they are supposed to determine whether the accused is guilty of the crime that has happened and come up with a reasonable and suitable punishment but some judges let their personal affairs get in the way. While this might sound strictly unjust to the accused, the judge displays signs of inequality when he or she lets signs of weakness from the victim affect their final verdict. The judge is there to assign a verdict as well as give out the proper punishment that is associated with the crime that was committed. If the judge changes their decision based on their point of view as well as how they feel towards the accused this means that the judge is bias. This creates an inequality between the accused members because if different people have been accused of the same crime and get the same judge they might get different verdicts depending on what the judge thinks and feels about them. Beccaria states that ‘‘we see the same court
The legal system is considered a place where justice is served and criminals are sent to prison. However, this is not always the case, as seen with Robert Baltovich, who suffered a serious miscarriage of justice. Baltovich was accused and unfairly convicted for a murder that he did not commit. The investigation into the murder of Elizabeth Bain was unfairly skewed to gain a conviction against Baltovich. The bias against Baltovich, in the murder investigation, and his subsequent trial was a disservice to him and to Canadian society.
In this essay, I will examine the ethical issues surrounding police corruption and discretion in the criminal justice system. I will also define legality and equity and how they relate to police corruption and discretion. Police corruption and discretion are ethical issues that have been negatively impacting the criminal justice system for years. Police corruption weakens the public 's confidence in law enforcement officers. It also hinders the effectiveness of law enforcement officers whose job is to serve and protect. I will also define police corruption and discretion and the reasons behind police misconduct.
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
Banks on the other hand though may have had felony charges and free ling form his native country, should be answerable to the commentary he made about the rape allegation s Janklow committed against the Indian girl. By the definition of the terms the court also need the plaintiff to verify in the statement that, the statement in the article was directly refereeing to him and was injurious when exposed to the public. There is a need to consider the defendant to reveal out that had applied the rules of writing whereby the cautionary language must be used in readers of the readers in order to avoid the being accused of revealing person information to the public without the consent of individual being referred to. When one refers to a different scenario case whereby a case of Gregory versa McDonnell the ruling was made as a result of failure of the plaintiff to prove that there was no application of cautionary statements, it’s better to include the rubric of legendary context the type of a forum in which the proclamation was prepared, a situation which could be referred to as a social
After reviewing multiple plea bargain decisions and upholding the continuation of the negotiating process, the highest court of the land has provided six core rulings on the process beginning with the point that defendants are permitted to have defense counsel to protect from pressure and influence from the prosecutor. Next, the court has ruled that “pleas must be made voluntarily and without pressure”, yet prosecutors still threaten stiffer penalties to defendants if he or she is not accepting the plea at the current stage. The prosecutor and defense must keep their promised side of the deal even after guilt is admitted in court. In addition, the defendant’s due process rights are not violated when the prosecutor threatens to re-indict the accused on more serious charges and accepting a guilty plea from a person who claims their innocence is still considered a valid declaration of guilt. Finally, when accounts given by the defendant may be used against him or her at trial if the negotiations fail if the person admits to the crime during the bargaining process but later testifies that he or she did not commit the act and maintains innocence. These rulings are essentially mandatory guidelines for the process and help maintain the complexity of the controversial
The problem with the prosecutorial process in our legal system described by William Stuntz (2011), author of The Collapse of American Criminal Justice, asserted that
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
The criminal justice system is a complex structure of separate parts that must work together to achieve justice as an end result. Justice isn’t always served and sometimes the wrong person goes free, robbing the victim of any possible closure. This is shown in the movie, Fracture, where an intelligent and wealthy man named Theodore Crawford goes to trial for the attempted murder of his wife, putting her in a coma and on life support, and ultimately gets off due to a lack of solid evidence. The motive behind the attempt on his wife, Jennifer’s, life is that she’s been engaging in an affair with Detective Robert Nunally, who would later unwittingly play a huge role in getting Theodore Crawford off. William Beachum, the prosecutor, is a cocky,
Police corruption is a form of police misconduct in which law enforcement officers seek personal gain and abuse their power in order to achieve it. A common example of police corruption is the acceptance of bribes in exchange for not pursuing a suspect or even discontinuing an investigation. Another, more extreme, example is police officers falsifying evidence in order to secure the convictions of their suspects. When situations like these arise, individuals charged with a crime are doomed from the start. The trial which they are given is unfair and the prosecutors are provided with evidence that will undoubtedly convince a jury or judge that the accused individual is indeed guilty, no matter if they are innocent or not. One of the most recent and highly publicized incidents regarding police fraud would be the O.J. Simpson case of 1995, which simultaneously served as an example of the imperfections related to the double jeopardy rule.
Leadership is not concerned with the position in the management of the company or the at what level you are working. A general thinking is that the most senior in the management of any company becomes the leader of that company. They are just that, senior executives. It is not connected with any pay grades or the level of seniority you have in the organization.