Ethical Considerations for the Investigator and Prosecutor in Homicide and Rape The investigator and prosecutor play very critical roles, roles that are only fairly fulfilled if all parties are as ethical as possible. Failing to act ethically can lose a case, set a criminal free or could even mean someone innocent going to prison. While ethics in every single type of case are important we are going to examine homicide and rape. Both homicide and rape leave the public hungry for answers. We must be sure that finding those answers are done ethically from the crime scene to trial.
Many decisions pertaining to a case going to trial and how actively they pursue the case are left up to prosecutors and how they view the evidence and what the evidence means to them. This can be described as prosecutorial discretion. How does this affect the prosecutor and overall case flow in the criminal court system? Prosecutorial discretion puts an abundance of pressure on the prosecutors and their roles in the courts. The prosecution must without a reasonable doubt prove the defendant is responsible for committing the crime.
Federalism in Ohio Amidst the manifold facets that formed America’s Constitution, the prevailing aspect of unity within the central forces of federal and state government have been among the most significant. As a Federalist nation, with a strong centralized body of government, whose constitution was immensely impacted by English Constitutionalism, America and its states abide by precepts based on liberty. Ohio State is a key example of how state constitutions coincide with ideals set forth with the governmental framework established by the United States Constitution. Even more so, the pattern by which the amending process occurred within the Ohio Constitution was closely tied to the political and social atmospheres of the state and nation. Because the United States constitution and Ohio constitution work together in defending federalism, there are many similarities between the two texts.
He was at that point understanding that states' rights were essential which winds up noticeably crucial when choosing our new government for the United States. Washington likewise understands that the inadequacies to encourage, oblige, supply, or pay the armed force was all that anyone could need to persuade him that a more
He thought that the government would be given too much power. His thoughts on the injustices in the Constitution greatly influenced the making of the Bill of Rights. At the time, Federalists argued that the Constitution didn’t need a bill of rights, due to the fact that the people and states kept any powers not given to the federal government, but Anti-Federalists said that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. So when the Bill of Rights was made it listed prohibitions on governmental power and the rights that were granted to people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Constitution it was became the fundamental rights of all citizens in 1791.
Beyond creating a conscience on the importance of voting, we hope to raise awareness to political issues that concerns us all. There is no small issue in politics. That is why it is important for us to be empowered and take action in the best way possible, casting our vote and making our voice heard. It is our right, it is our duty, it is our responsibility. Many people use the term 'democracy' as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.
UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
As you can see by the definition, there are big differences between interview and interrogation. The main difference is that interview is asking the witnesses of the crime and interrogation is questioning the ones that are said to have committed the crime. 2. Identify the rule when Miranda warnings are required. “The Miranda rule is to be conducted when the suspect is in custody and the officer is about to conduct the interrogation.” (Hess Orthmann & Hess, 2013).
Is the Constitution still Relevant? An ongoing argument over modern political and social issues centers on whether the U.S. Constitution is relevant in today’s world. With all the advancements in technology, communication, transportation, commerce, and in the medical field, some argue that the Founding Fathers could not have seen what would be necessary for the United States to stay the great nation that it already is, so I believe that the constitution is still relevant to a degree. For most, when forming the Constitution, the framers did not construct the constitution’s durability based on any advancement in technologies or society. They wrote the restrictive forces of the Constitution on something far more predictable, the meaning of freedom.
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.