It provides several elements that help in shaping our political frame. Elements such as the Constitution, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary branch are what define the current Canadian political system. Each branch has its fair share of duties and responsibilities in governing the state. The legislatures are responsible for making and amending laws, the executive have the responsibility of implementing those laws and day to day management of the government and finally, the judiciary which represents courts and judges that interpret and review those laws (Brooks, Lesson 11, slides 11-15). All of these aspects are powerful in the sense of running a constitutional monarchy in a democratic state like Canada.
With a guilty plea the process shifts the focus from the jury and judge to the prosecutor and defence counsel. It expected by the public for the truth to be discovered through the fact finding trial process. In practice plea bargaining may prevent a public finding of the facts and substitute a behind the scenes cut short plea bargaining process that fashions an offence that may or may not be supported by the evidence and this also determines the variety of penalties available to the court and limits the discussion of the evidence (Palermo et al, 1998). Plea bargaining is a notion which is well known and generally used and accepted in the United States. This usually consists of a deal being made between the prosecutor and the defence an example of plea bargaining is when the prosecution offers to drop a more serious charge against the accused in exchange for guilty plea of a lesser charge and the
Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong. In the United State’s Court Systems, the conventional method is for jurors as “evaluator of fact” and judges as the interpreter of the law and the instructor of the jury with regards to the application of the law. In an instance wherein the jury replaces its personal interpretation of the law and ignores the law fully to come up with a verdict, this results to jury nullification. In the courts, the commonly established perception of jury nullification is when a juror acknowledges power but has no right to nullify the law. Jury nullification is frequently practiced, but rarely occurs, in criminal trials and theoretically applicable to civil trials too – where it is focus to civil procedural solutions.
If you were found guilty after a trial, you can appeal to the Crown Court against your conviction. However, if you pleaded guilty and were sentenced in the magistrates’ court you will not be able to appeal against your conviction, but you can still appeal against the length or nature of your sentence. In order to appeal, you are required to obtain ‘leave’ (permission) from the Court of Appeal. In the first instance, you apply for leave to appeal to a single judge who will consider your request on the papers alone. If this is refused, you can apply in front of the full
If the person is not charged it is so they can further the investigation, if they are charged it is so they can remain at liberty until the court date. The decision whether bail should be granted is made by the Custody Officer, under section 38 of PACE. They can refuse bail if the name and address can not be discovered or is not genuine. The magistrates also have the power to grant bail if the police have charged the suspect and have refused to grant bail. The suspect must be brought before the Magistrates court at the first available opportunity.
Role Morality in Contemporary Legal Practice Contemporary legal practice is plagued by a variety of structural and philosophical issues regarding the efficiency, direction and spirit of justice in Canada today. In “Law’s Ambition and the Reconstruction of Role Morality in Canada,” David M. Tanovich theorizes that the professional role disconnect of lawyers between facilitating justice and zealous advocacy can be bridged by a reconstructed role morality grounded in a justice-seeking ethic. Such a reconstruction relies on lawyers to formulate, modulate and emulate the set of norms, standards and values that create the contemporary legal conscience, essentially its role morality. I believe that Tanovich’s rebuttals of role morality’s critiques are strong, tie into our week’s discussion of lawyers’ moral/ethical challenges and should form the core of every lawyer’s modus operandi. I will reflect on these rebuttals within the context of the critique and the importance of ethical lawyering as a whole.
In the case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978), the court stated, “so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Although there are many factors that come into play when a prosecutor is considering dismissing a case, the most prominent issues are state and federal resources, time, and investigative teams. When there is an insufficient amount of resources and time, the accused may be more subject to leniency from the prosecutors. Moreover, the counter argument for lenient behavior is that because prosecutors are not following through and charging certain cases, then they are not fully executing the law. Additionally, many people believe there is a strong possibility that some prosecutors will abuse their discretion privileges (Slobogin, p548). In the federal courts, prosecutors also have the discretion to join charges.
When asking yourself this question it puts the state on the honor system. If they answer this question with doubt in their voting method, then they should redo the method, or come up with one that they feel confident about. My agenda I am completely confident about if it is used correctly, due to the plethora of stages the ballots must be counted in, there is a small margin for error. There are four different steps when considering the odds of error and fairness within a voting system. The first step is to “ask what odds will your give that the presumption proves correct?” Step two is to “require each to specify what makes his answer different from the others.” Step three is to “Encourage argument, promote articulation of differences.” And the fourth step is to “review presumption accordingly.” All these questions must be asked when going through my agenda before the next step in counting the ballots is carried on.
If evidence is withheld, it violates the defendant’s rights and justice will not be achieved. Prosecutors have to follow the Brady Rule, which was established in 1963 after the Brady v. Maryland ruling (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). This rule requires prosecutors to expose any material they have, and any material the government may have, to the defense team. The material exposed is known as “Brady material” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).This evidence may be favorable to the defendant’s case and may help prove the innocence of the accused and may also shorten any prison sentence he or she may receive. If, at any time, the evidence is not given to the defense, any evidence that has been exposed to that point will be determined unvalid (Legal Information Institutue, n.d.).
Depending on the crime: misdemeanor, felony, or petty offense; punishment is rendered after a conviction is determined. Mitigation by the defense attorney occurs prior to sentencing. According to The Law Offices of Patrick Maher (n.d.), “after a guilty finding, the judge gives the attorney an opportunity to speak on behalf of the client. This is called mitigation, defined as “to make less severe.” This is a very important part of the process and can have a dramatic impact on the judge’s decision.” The crime and circumstance dictates punishment and sentencing. Punishment can include probation, imprisonment, community service, and fines.