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.
The victim will have to go through the court process, which in many ways can cause the person to be victimized again. When a plea bargain is done just so it can get off the “docks” it can but a negative perception from the community of the justice system. Plea bargaining is a win/win situation neither of the counsel’s lose. The judge’s caseload is lessened because there is no need for a trial. With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge.
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
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.
Although the penalties for burglary are harsh, it's often possible to get the charges reduced or dismissed. Because of legal technicalities and difficulties of proof, prosecutors frequently agree to settle cases for lesser charges. And burglary cases that go to jury trial, with an effective defense, can result in a "not guilty" verdict. Just because you are accused of or prosecuted for burglary does not mean that you must be convicted of burglary. Depending on what the judges charges are against Oliver he may get charged with the burglary on top of that he may be charged with possession of a firearm and silencers are illegal so that may be another charge he will be charged with.
A convenient way to conceive of philosophical arguments is to envision the arrangement of a Criminal or Civil Court. Who are the participants in the typical court situation? Of course there is always a judge with special training and authority to over see the rules for administering justice between the parties to the dispute. Who else? Well there is the prosecutor representing the jurisdiction whether City, State or Federal (or claimant who has filed a claim against a litigant who has done something for which the claimant seeks retribution) and the defendant who under some circumstances may act in his or her own defense but in all likelihood a licensed, practicing attorney who acts on behalf of his client(s).
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.
This is how the prosecutor determines which cases to pursue. I wouldn’t know what would happen if the criteria for taking a case were more or less stringent because I would have to know what the effects would be if it was more or less severe in each case. So opinion would be that if the criteria were less prosecuting lawyers would want to charge people for any and everything. If the criterion was more then it would be harder to convict a person because it probably would require more information and
An example of ineffective demonstrative communication could be an innocent person going to court for a criminal offense. This person may show a loss of confidence, they may not speak clearly and may look very badly because of stress, etc. A juror may look at this person and say they look guilty. The defendant should have worked harder to convey their innocence to the jury by using demonstrative communication more effectively. Another example is a company’s human resources department.
The result of could be a false verdict or a mistrial, both of which could be very costly to the legal system and delay the trial for sometimes (Jury Tampering Law & legal Definition). There are several ways that a juror can be persuading which includes bribery, threats, and unauthorized communications. It is a not common situation is one where lawyers are involved