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.
Government officials, politicians, and courts employees have concluded that individuals commit crimes for private alternatives and they should be punished and held responsible for their actions and conduct. Criminals also have the concept that they will never be caught thus they will continue commit crimes until proven otherwise. Large amounts of criminal who have committed offenses do not think about the consequences of their action (Brown, 2007). Today’s society has determined that the root of why an individual would choose to commit crimes is steam from the lack of education and impoverished backgrounds (Brown, 2007). To do wrong and commit crime is a choice of the criminal.
As I would like to think, if people are not considered responsible for law violations against mankind, our general public will never again be viewed as socialized. I do accept however, the equity framework need to be actualizing more suitable disciplines, for unlawful acts without a casualty. I think a few cases ought to be considered for more probation for peaceful law violations, and a workable arrangement of projects, rather than detainment. I think, if the wrongdoing is about cash or medications that don't bring about the demise of another, these individuals can be pivoted from displaying criminal acts. I accept assault cases ought to request great treatment for the criminal.
This is a problem because it may lead to individuals being wrongly identified as abnormal. • Social norms change over time and therefore it is problematic to determine abnormality as a deviation from social norms. Historically this definition has been wrongly applied to groups of individuals who are not abnormal but fail to meet the social norms of the society. • Social norms differ across cultures, therefore what is seen as abnormal in one culture would be normal in another culture due to their definition of the ‘norm’. This is a problem because it means that the definition cannot be generalised to all cultures as it would lead to people being
The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures. (Woodfin, 2009) In addition, there are already several exceptions to requiring a warrant, such as “stop-and-frisk”, airport and school searches, voluntary searches, and emergency situations (Scheb, 2008) While these arguments supported the continued use of the exclusionary rule, there are also many argue against its value to our criminal justice system. One of the most
After reading the report, I chose Glen Woodall. I found this case to be very interesting, as situations like this happen all the time. Wrongful convictions,not only hurt the one that's being accused, but it hurts the person's family as well. In the eye of the public, if your arrested for a crime, then your an outsider, no matter how you may have contributed to your community. But a lot of people remain steadfast in their innocence.
The public is hard.” From that it can be seen that the public is bias towards the circumstances of the supposed victim and wants the accused punished without any regard to their situation. When it comes to a crime the community wants to be put at ease. They want someone convicted and justice to be served as soon as possible. However, what happens in the case of an innocent person being wrongly accused? This is called a ‘miscarriage of justice’.
There are many different theories of how to help prevent crime around the world. Choice theories are theories based on many beliefs that people have a choice. After reading our text; all the different theories the book talks about it comes down to one think for most of the choice theories; having the choice. The rational choice theory is one that is solely based on choice of the criminal. It is said that the criminals know what they are doing is wrong, and will end them with punishment by law in some form or another but see that the benefits of committing the crime are worth more than the punishment they will suffer for committing the crime.
I understand what’s trying to be done with the definitions of victimless crimes but I think every crime should have a determined punishment. Some people like to blame the government for all of their problems. I disagree with blaming them, but I do think it is their job to make fair laws and help to make people follow them. In the matter of the government and victimless
Our country has recently witnessed a large amount of police misconduct, and the murders of innocent people. It is important for police officers to treat all people and situations fairly, and only act with force if that is their only option instead of because they feel they are above the law. Police officers should be mindful of the life they live, and how to live without causing incidents that will make themselves and the police force look bad. It is very important to live by the code of ethics at work as well as away from work. It is sad that because of police misconduct people lose trust in police officers, and teach younger generations that all police are bad when they are not.