Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place. Often times the prosecutor is viewed as being on the side of justice and as a result it is difficult for the defendant (who is accused of a crime) to turn the tide against the prosecution. Although during the trial both the defense as well as the judge may report a prosecutor for misconduct, this rarely happens as these reports are often dismissed. This is because as long as the prosecutions misconduct does not affect the outcome of the case, then it is tolerated, meaning that a prosecutor can harass a witness or the defendant so long as the harassment did not have anything to do with the outcome of the trial. The fact that the prosecutor works in the interests of the state can be seen as the underlying factor here.
What are the problems with non-interrogatory forms of evidence? Choose two forms of non-interrogatory evidence to discuss. Having enough evidence is key in charging, prosecution and finally conviction of criminals, unfortunately most cases result in the police needing and wanting more evidence. Due to insufficient evidence the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not be pursued cases further, even if the police believe they have the right suspect. However there are other types of evidence collection apart from that of questioning, which falls under the title of non-interrogatory forms of evidence such as surveillance and scientific evidence.
False testimony, exaggerated statistics and laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in several states. Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced. In some instances, labs or their personnel have allied themselves with police and prosecutors, rather than prioritizing the search for truth. Other times, criminalists lacking the requisite knowledge have embellished findings and eluded detection because judges and juries lacked background in the relevant sciences, themselves.
I believe neuro-imaging could be used as evidence. While many people may use it as an excuse for their actions, it makes sense for why they did these actions. I do not believe it should give them a free pass out of jail (since they still know its wrong and CAN ask for help), but I do think they need counseling and medication over some jail time since that is the only thing that will cure their problem. 5. Do you believe that the judicial system should be based on holding people accountable for their choices (blame) or probability of future crimes committed?
Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity. All these points are valid, but they are forgetting about the rights of people and what they stand for. I would think people would want defendants to be punished fairly and not have an opening, where they could possible get their case dropped because of something illegal done on the prosecution or law enforcement
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,
In Newman’s study some possible issues that could have emerged were confidentiality, No harm, Deception and analysis and reporting. Confidentiality could have been an issue because she can identify persons given responses but not to do so publicly. She can ruin someone’s life if someone found out that it was there response. And by that happening she would cross another ethical issue called no-harm. Deception is often used but it is not supposed to be.
People deserve a reasonable trial for instances, there are individuals who are accused of crimes he or she have not committed. Whereas, certain people have committed crimes that are found not guilty for the simple fact one has the money to hire a high-class lawyer. The situations concerning these accusations tend to protect others that can afford to be represented financially the ones who cannot manage to pay for high-class lawyers settle for court appointed attorneys. “Although appellate courts rule that improper statements made by prosecutors do not render sentencing proceedings unfair, some judges express concern that the error may not be harmless” (Edwards, 1995). This action should be carefully view by higher authorities in making sure that justice is served correctly and
All criminal cases are attended by a court reporter, but a court reporter is required in civil hearings only if a party asks for one. Q: Which system is most effective? A: There is a continuing debate between those who believe that it is less costly and more efficient to have court proceedings electronically recorded and transcribed only when a transcript is absolutely necessary, and those who believe that having a stenographic reporter present to take down the testimony is most effective. A stenographic reporter may mishear, misunderstand, or err in taking down the words. However, even an attended electronic system may crash, despite backups.
When a performance is rewarded, a subject will produce more of it and naturally when a performance is not rewarded, a subject will produce less of it. It is also known that the government rewards crime labs verifying unknown substances to be illegal narcotics, for finding a driver’s blood alcohol content to be over a certain number and determining a package of drugs is over a certain weight so a heavier charge can be imposed. Police often share their suspicions regarding suspects with lab workers before forensic examinations are performed. This introduces prejudice to lab personnel in areas such as fingerprint examination and chemical testing for accelerants in arson investigations. Some lab examiners feel they are part of the prosecution