It is difficult to hold prosecutors accountable for acts of misconduct. Since prosecutors are often viewed as the “good guys” by the public, many times unethical, as well as illegal acts will be tolerated by the courts and criminal justice system as a whole. Prosecutorial misconduct is considered any action taken by the prosecutor in a criminal case that is against the law and/or unethical. Prosecutorial evidence can be anything from harassing witnesses on the stand, pressing unfounded charges against defendants, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, up to taking bribes. Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place.
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.
After serving almost 15 years in prison, his exoneration was not until 2002. Some contributing factors to the wrongful conviction of Bromgard are as follows. Eye Witness Misidentification In the Bromgard case, one of the police officers thought it could be Bromgard because the victim’s wallet was close to the Bromgard home. Though the victim picked Bromgard out of a line up, she was unsure and stated so in court she was only 65% sure he was the man who assaulted her. Even, though the victim stated several times she was unsure of Bromgard her attacker, he was on trial for sexual intercourse without consent.
The publicity of the case and the one-sided role of the media caused a majority of people, internationally, to be biased and influenced. This impact then led to numerous problems and difficulties in being treated fairly, such as finding an impartial jury. This factor of having preconceived idea meant that the jury had already decided Lindy Chamberlain’s fate, opposing the justice being “served,” legitimately. Wiping away any chance for Lindy Chamberlain to prove her innocence creates an inevitable outcome. The Chamberlains being judged under a heavily biased jury influenced by the media, therefore shows the maltreatment of the case by the justice system and the society.
During your testimony, you may be asked to identify an exhibit dealing with the result of the altercation. It is important that you be prepared for your testimony. Not being prepared may make the judge think that you are making up your evidence as you go along. Similarly, major inconsistencies in evidence will tell against your credibility. On the other hand, minor inconsistencies may be hallmarks of truth, since people will often see things differently, even when describing the same event.
Some of the information such as most of the evidence pertaining to the other 20 victims was held back from the jury after the judge ruled in August 2006 that Pickton should face two separate trials; the first one on six counts, and the second one on 20 counts. Even after the severance ruling, the Crown still wanted to tell the jury about the ground mean containing the DNA of Feliks and Hall, as well
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.
Getting someone to confess to a crime is not a simple task, and the fact that detectives sometimes end up with confessions from the innocent testifies to their expertise in psychological manipulation. No two interrogations are alike, but most exploit certain weaknesses in human nature. These weaknesses typically rely on the stress that results when people experience contrasting extremes, like dominance
It is because of the gross misinterpretations of this law that prevents all involved from getting a fair trial as in the Alexander, Giles and Landry cases. It encourages unlawful behavior with a crutch for assailants to lean on just like George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn. It also undermines this country's law enforcement and judicial system. Sadly, it rips justice away from victims' families. While I do not personally feel the Stand Your Ground law should be abolished, I am adamant that the law needs to be revised.
Should the Parole System be abolished? Timothy P Ostin 0458935 TESC November 2010 ENC 102-OL014 Research Paper In its current state, the U.S. parole system is flawed and truly causes more harm than good. Abolishing parole is absolutely necessary for the safety and well being of the community of law abiding citizens that inmates are released to live amongst, as well as the best opportunity for offenders to rehabilitate so that reintegration is ultimately more successful. Most people believe that the parole system is not only corrupt, but inherently unjust…making it seemingly contradictory to the foundation upon which the system was initially built, the justice system. While the decision to abolish parole is a controversial one,