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.
Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
There is little question that the public leans toward a punishment that is harsher for those who commit acts of armed robber. The public would the people are who innocent and inevitably be the victims who would be the targets for those criminals. The public would be in full support of a motion that punishes those who perform these acts more harshly than they are being punished now in the hopes that the new legislation would act as deterrence. It has been a common theory that harsher punishments would indeed be effective as deterrents to such acts of deviance as armed robbery. Acts of armed robbery that end in violence or homicide tend to render the public outraged and give their voice a stronger demand for justice to be done.
Fault is an essential element of criminal liability. It is a concept in criminal and civil law whereby the defendant is held responsible for doing something wrong. This can be through an act or omission and can be proven through the rules of causation. The implication of being found at fault is a criminal record whose consequences on the defendant personal life are serious. However, there are some types of behaviours such as Strict Liability offences which do not require fault but the defendant is still prosecuted.
That usually means reverting to street crimes. These crimes include burglary, vandalism, and selling drugs. Those individuals feel that street crime is the only way they will obtain material success. Merton's theory may stand true when comparing social status with street crime; however, his theory becomes weak when the crimes include white-collar and business crimes. Therefore, Merton's theory has become an “anomie theory”.
While it can be hard to understand why someone would falsely confess to a crime, psychological research has provided some answers and DNA exonerations have proven that the problem is more widespread than many people think. In approximately 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned with DNA evidence, defendants made false confessions, admissions or statements to law enforcement officials. In some false confession cases, details of the crime are inadvertently communicated to a suspect by police during questioning. Later, when a suspect knows these details, the police take the knowledge as evidence of guilt. Often, threats or promises are made to the suspect off camera and then the camera is turned on for a false confession.
A civil case is when the plaintiff decides to sue another person, organization, or a business, the individual being sued is also called the defendant. In a criminal case, the crime is based on offenses against the state, with the prosecutor charging the suspect for the crime and not the actual victim charging the suspect. (The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case, n.d) Many fundamental distinctions between a civil and criminal case separate them from one another in our court system, which include but are not limited to; the standard of proof required in a criminal case compared to that of a civil case, the terms and forms of punishment, and also whether or not you are entitled to an attorney. “In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.” (The Differences between a Criminal Case and a Civil Case, n.d) A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact is known as standard of proof. (Standard of proof.
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
Deterrence also helps to prevent crime in two ways. One of which is specific deterrence. Specific deterrence helps to decrease recurring violations by reappearing convicted criminals. The other is general deterrence. General deterrence sways certain actions in the direction of people that have not carried out any
We have witnessed in this century, the growth of sophisticated crime. Here, question is, whether existing periphery of extradition norms are competent enough to combat such a kind of sophistication? As mentioned earlier, extradition should be seen with a diverse view. Not all demands of extradition can be genuine, but also we have to kept in mind that most of them are genuine demand so in fist instance the question of human right arises and in the latter, the issue of state sovereignty stands. If we examine closer, the purpose of extradition we are left that, is to prevent criminals who flee from a jurisdiction to escape from punishment for criminal offence they have been accused or convicted of.