With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
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.
This can also have a moral dilemma involved. It can be very stressful if there is only one person who thinks the defendant is innocent and everyone else thinks he or she is guilty. So the question is do you stay to what you feel or do you go along with everyone else. Last but not least there is the judge. The Judge is there to make sure the defense and the prosecution go by the book.
But in contrast there are very different at the same time. The crime control model is used in the criminal justice system for the prevention of crime. The crime control does not exclude that is possible to make a mistake, but based on the circumstances of the laws, the person is considered guilty until her or she is proven innocent. This model is based on old fashion laws which allow rapid and speedy convictions despite the mitigating factors of the case and the victim. The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system.
If Joe Justice wants to get the deal done with Jim Lawbreaker, what options does he have in terms of bringing charges against him? I am not sure about the options the Joe Justice has regarding making a deal with Jim Lawbreaker, I think that the one of the charges would be accessory to commit a crime, and since he wasn’t the main character in the robbery and I think that in order to get to the main culprit the deal that Jim Lawbreaker attorney is offering is fair since the results of the lab tests are incomplete and a statement from Jim will help the prosecutor make sure that Martin goes to jail for the crime. The evidence does not place Lawbreaker on the scene and no witnesses can place him there either. 2. Does Joe Justice have enough evidence to take a case against Slick Martin to grand
It is not considered jury tampering because the prosecution and defense attorneys have the right to know the credibility of the person that would be deciding the fate of the defendant. Why or why not? The only way that I would see it being jury tampering is if after the jurors are chosen, someone starts threatening or trying to coerce the witness to not testify at the trial. Lawyers can also exercise a challenge for cause claiming the juror could not be
Subsequent to the prosecution putting on the total of its evidence, the defense attorney will customarily ask for a dismissal of the charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. It is the prosecutor’s job to present sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime. The court does not
The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others. Such conduct is generally deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. If the facts can support such a finding, the punitive damage issue is allowed to go to the jury.' Once the question has been submitted to the jury, the generally accepted rule is that the jury, in its sole, unfettered discretion, determines whether to award punitive damages and in what amount.' "It is the long settled and uniformly adhered to rule in our jurisprudence that the amount of punitory or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury, and, no matter what the sum of their * Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI.
However, there are some types of behaviours such as Strict Liability offences which do not require fault but the defendant is still prosecuted. Fault is established by a combination of Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Defences and Sentencing. The outcome of being charged with a criminal offence is based on whether the defendant is found to be at fault (guilty) as a result he is convicted and sentenced; or he is not at fault (not guilty) and is acquitted; or he is partially at fault which is where the charge is reduced to a lesser offence for example a murder charge is reduced to a manslaughter charge. Firstly, to be at fault, the defendant must have the Actus Reus of the offence he is being charged with. Generally, the Actus Reus must be voluntary and deliberate and if involuntary, he is not at fault.
Plea Bargains I believe that plea bargains should be entered into with the defendant knowing and understanding the plea completely. The defendants comprehend that by taking the plea he or she is admitting guilt. Allowing pleas of no contest, or requiring an admission of guilt is wrong the fact remains that innocent people who see that they have no choice but to take the plea. Places innocent people in jail and after taking the plea have no recourse, if he or she eventually gets evidence of their innocence they cannot change what is on their record. I would think that if a judge knowingly accepts a plea agreement knowing that the defendant is not admitting that he or she is guilty, and does not believe that the defendant is taking the plea out of an admission of guilt should not agree to the plea.