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.
Ignored Obligations - Defense Attorneys Some Obligations that go ignored or unattended to by defense attorneys vary, thinking of how an innocent man or woman can go to prison for a crime he or she did not commit. Because of an attorney failing to do his or her job, results in a drastic injustice, not only from the wrongfully convicted but also within the Justice System. Denial of Due Process As a citizen Due Process is to have fair treatment within the justice system, and to have a denial of one’s Due Process can result in an injustice to the defendant, and the victim as well as the Justice System itself. Denying ones Due process includes: * Ignoring regulatory and statutory guarantees * Not following the rules and procedures * Ignoring the civil rights and
Conclusion -> draw together main ideas/arguments An outsider does not fit into society and they will do what they see to be right. Although the legal system is meant to be fair, it is only fair to society. If some one is different society tries to outcast them. More often than not, justice does not reach as far as the outsider. Justice is what is seen to be right and just by society and this means that society is catered for.
When it comes to the Alton Logan case there is an automatic red flag thrown up on the attorneys decision to remain silent and a lot of critical comments are being thrown toward the attorneys because most of us find this silence by the attorneys to be unacceptable and very unmoral. When we start to read the details of this case we could easily begin saying that the two lawyers who represented Andrew Wislon should have spoke up and that saving an innocent man was more important than the attorney-client privilege law but then again it is easy to argue that the lawyers did the right thing by not breaking the attorney- client privilege law and if you’re willing to keep an open mind and try and see where these two lawyers are coming from in this moral decision they made, you might be swayed a different direction or at least understand the attorneys decision a little
In the civil system of courts the parties are also adverse to each other, however instead of arguing against each other, each party provides the evidence to the judge whom will then ask the questions and from there may decide the outcome of the case. These processes are known as inquisitorial due to the nature of the ‘inquisition’ by the judge. Controversy has arisen as to which system of trial provides society with the favoured ‘justice.’ It has been argued that the adversary system is favoured over the inquisitorial system as the personal biases of a judge in the conduct of a case are less obvious. Many people claim that such a system does not achieve justice, as juries, in particular, can be convinced by the quality of the barristers’ legal arguments, rather than actual evidence. Alternatively, the inquisitorial system may be said to provide better justice in that a judge has a broader range of possibilities to ask wider and deeper questions, and can therefore gather information that the parties did not intend to expose.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Also it gives ordinary citizens an important role on oversight in the judicial branch. This is not equal or fair due to the fact that the law definition of ordinary is; a person, mainly a judge exercising authority by virtue of office and not by delegation. Also document C states those who serve the jury receive benefits and so does the cases that appears before it and democracy itself. Therefore how does someone who doesn’t believe in democracy be considered to have equal rights is the jury system is what is used. That’s another reason why the American jury system is not a good idea.
Answer: A dictatorship and democracy are quite different, but they can also be similar. In a dictatorship the common people have no say in the on goings of government or the treatment of the governed. In a democracy the people DO have a say in what goes on, and they vote to make decisions. Both can be good in bad in their own ways. Some say a dictatorship is better because the people don’t know what is and isn’t good for them.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
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.