The Role Ethics Play when an Attorney Becomes the Judge and the Jury Candy Olson Kaplan University The Role Ethics Play when an Attorney becomes the Judge and the Jury Ethically, attorneys are disciplined for committing crimes against his or her employer or clients, if they are caught committing such crimes. This assignment delves into what occurs psychologically and worldly when an attorney feels it is right to submit forged documents into evidence in order to save her client from the death penalty. Although the attorney’s client, Jane, is accused by an eyewitness of her husband’s murder, Jane was not the person who killed her husband. However, the attorney should know that forging any document in Jane’s name is considered a felony in her state. For purposes of this assignment, this writer will be Jane’s attorney and will be referred to as “Amanda.” The question this paper seeks to answer or review is whether Amanda believes that she deserves a pass regardless of the crime she has committed due to her moral obligation to save Jane’s life.
The prosecution must without a reasonable doubt prove the defendant is responsible for committing the crime. And in doing so must remain within the regulations of the courts. Sometimes the prosecution’s personal, ethical. Organizational, or political beliefs can becomea driving force into a trail which can have negative effects on the courts when misconduct occurs or mistakes are made. When misconduct or mistakes are made it can have very damaging effects on individuals and their lives, but also to the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The legal issue regarding this case is that Gevin Prince, now accused of murder, should and could have received more medical care for his behavioral problems. Gevin had been previous diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome which is similar to autism and had been known to have acted out in the past. The sheriff department was familiar with the home on Spring Ridge Drive responding to repeated calls in the past. But, because the state and the system failed to get Gevin the proper care for his abnormal behavioral problems he commits a murder. Now this leads me to my next concern the ethical issue.
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
According to Terry Lenamon, expert Criminal Trial Attorney, the first, and most popular, is the “M’Naghten test.” Lenamon says, “Under M’Naghten, the determining factor is whether or not the defendant was (1) able to understand what he (or she) was doing at the time of the crime due to some “defect of reason or disease of the mind” or, (2) if he (or she) was aware of what they were doing, that he (or she) nevertheless failed to comprehend or understand that what they were doing was wrong” (Lenamon). With that in mind, think about how many inmates have not taken that test and have been wrongly convicted. The American Civil Liberties Union states, “Mental Health America, estimates that five to ten percent of all death row inmates suffer from a severe mental illness.” Furthermore, if these people could get tested, they would realize how many people are legally insane and do not deserve to be in jail, but rather a hospital. Consequently, some of the individuals sitting on death row may
Those individuals being: Roderigo, Emilia and Desdemona. The defendant has used his position being the Moor’s trusted ensign to his advantage. His reasons of killing these innocent people are juvenile and unreasonable. Iago is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, your honour and ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Now let’s consider this argument that the defendant is a two-faced character.
Following that Andrea Yates submitted a plea of guilty for reason of insanity. The criminal case a criminal defendant can claim insanity by simply saying that he or she should not be held criminally liable for the damages committed from his particular crime because he was insane at the time of occurrence. Acording to CBS News (2009) "Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist, testified for the defense that she did not know killing the children was wrong because she was trying to save them from hell.” Now because of the evidence used and the defense of insanity, the cases outcome did not meet very many people’s expectations, to include my own. Many felt that her being sentenced to a mental institute was an injustice at its finest. Acording to CBS News (2009) "No one should believe that she is getting off easy.
In the case that they are not willing to collaborate with the prosecution, the defense is not permitted access to the requested evidence. In an example of discovery of evidence, Brady v. Maryland (1963), Brady and his acquaintance Boblit were prosecuted for murder. Though the prosecution had a written statement from Boblit, in which he admitted that he alone had killed the victim, they had convicted Brady for the crime as well. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that withholding evidence that is pertinent either to a person’s guilt or to their punishment violates due process
The court pleads the man guilty without any proof of rape. Had this been a white man instead the outcomes would have been different. When Tom Robinson was asked why he helped the “Victim” he answered “Looks like she didn't have nobody to help her. I felt sorry for her”(Lee chap 19-20). When Tom said those words the court couldn’t believe what they had heard.
If you ask anyone to describe crime in one word the first word out of anyone’s mouth would probably be “bad”. However, after watching “The Negotiator” people might change their view on the word. What Danny Roman did was in fact a crime, but because of rational choice theory we know there is more to the story than just the choice Danny made to hold hostages. Rational choice theory is a criminological approach that understands that people commit crimes (most of the time) under free will however; circumstances may affect the exercise of personal choice. Rational choice theory was reborn in the 1970s as a response to the failure of rehabilitation.