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.
For race-based jury nullification Race-based nullification is not promoted as a positive thing all the time but evening out races throughout a jury may influence the verdict. Racial nullification prohibits the law to protect the plaintiff, if the weight is on evidence (Tomlinson, 2010). Jury nullification is the refusal of jurors to convict a defendant despite his or her belief in the defendant’s guilt and believe the law is unjust the jury, is said to judge the law though more accurately, the jury is judging the law’s specific applications and not the general validity. An example of a race-based jury is White jurors acquit White defendant despite the evidence of guilt. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination based on race or ethnicity while selecting jury members and among this clause the Constitutional right to a fair trial stands strong (Cornell University Law School, 2010).
The fact that the prosecutor works in the interests of the state can be seen as the underlying factor here. The prosecutor can get away with misconduct; because if it were proven that the prosecutor was actually responsible for misconduct it would greatly undermine the goal of the state, which is to seek justice. If the prosecutor is misconducting themselves then it gives the impression that the prosecutor is not interested in justice, but more so a conviction, whether it be done so legally and ethically, or not. Prosecutorial misconduct happens, and
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.
Whether or not this man was punished and remained in jail was up to the prosecution. Heffernan’s critical decision would be whether or not to remove his thoughts on morality from his professional decision. The defendant had a legal right to a jury trial and a moral right to have it vindicated. Since the judge had refused to instruct the jury concerning the justifiable use of deadly force, the defendant had been denied that right. Heffernan was faced with whether
In many circumstances a jury may dismiss the testimony and evidence and inject their own personal opinions regarding the law. This is known as jury nullification. Jury nullification permits juries to acquit even when the facts of the case suggest they convict, and thus enables citizens to play a more active role in determining justice and what or whom should be punished (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 265). Influence of Ethnicity within the Courtroom An individual’s race or ethnicity can have a substantial influence on courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. Many people, regardless of their own race, have preconceived notions of individuals that are charged with a criminal offense.
An example of the state committing an unjust act against the individual was evidenced in the recent Troy Davis case. Even if Davis was guilty, there was enough doubt for the state to delay his execution in order to determine the best course of action to take. This is just one widely recognized example, there might be many more examples of unjust acts committed by the state. Should for some reason Troy Davis had been broken out of prison against the will of the state, once again Socrates would not justify this. It's situations such as this that makes me not believe in legal obligation to the extent which Socrates does where it's almost absolute.
Won’t our own biases show through these special laws that are left up to interpretation. Lady justice is suppose to be blind. Hate crime laws should not be used to determine guilt or punishment because they separate civilized society into a larger group of hypocritical
Indictment II. Eminent domain III. Due process, IV. Self-incrimination V. Double jeopardy In my opinion the Fifth Amendment is important because it prevents individuals from being compelled to essentially testify against themselves. With Due process it the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law it helps us in our court system to plead not guilty or guilty.
In criminal defense cases there can be several type of defense types which are used in order to try and convince the jury and judge that the defendant is not guilty of his/her crime. Some types of common criminal defenses are that of The Insanity Defense, The Affirmative Criminal, Coercion and Duress, Abandonment or withdrawal and many others as well. Criminal defenses are not the types of options that just come up but instead there are the factors that all defendant attorneys work towards for their client so that they can prevent a guilty verdict upon the case. All criminal defenses are constructed so that an argument(s) can be created upon the prosecuting attorneys, so that no charges fall against or go through to the accused defendant. Criminal defense of insanity is one type of popular strategy which is tried to be used by many criminal offenders whom are found to be guilty of their crimes or are about to fall within law’s hands.