Double Jeopardy Case Scenarios
Phase 4 Case Scenario
Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................. 2
Double Jeopardy....................................................................................................3
Case Scenario-Robbery and Assault…………………………………………….3
Theory of Punishment……………………………………………………………6
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..7
References..............................................................................................................8
Addendum……………………………………………………………………..…9
Abstract
In this Phase 4 research paper we are asked to read a case scenario about a prominent member of the community being robbed and assaulted with a deadly weapon, and form an opinion, setting up an outline for further in depth study. The case scenario we were given is this: Around 2:30 p.m. on the afternoon of September 18, the victim, a prominent citizen in the …show more content…
community, was assaulted and robbed of his wallet by the defendant while walking home from work. He was assaulted, pushed up against a car, and threatened with a knife. Because of the victim 's prominence in the community, this crime generated a great deal of media attention, calling for a quick arrest and conviction of the person or persons who committed the crime, which resulted in heavy pressure being placed on the police to make an arrest. The defendant was apprehended several days later while carrying the victim’s wallet and a knife. The victim subsequently identified the defendant in a lineup. During the preliminary hearing, the defendant was declared indigent and provided with a public defender. Because of the nature of the offense, bail was denied. The defendant, who chose not to take the stand in his own defense during the trial, was convicted on multiple charges connected with the assault and is awaiting sentencing.
Phase 4 Case Scenario
Double Jeopardy
At what stage in the criminal justice process does double jeopardy attach itself to the proceedings? Why? Explain your answer.
What is Double Jeopardy? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “[no person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.” (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004) This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitutions, statutes and common law. (West 's Encyclopedia of American Law edition 2 The Gale Group, INC, 2008) This is so fundamental to the United States Constitution, that is has been incorporated by due process in the Fourteenth Amendments binding it to the states, also. Double Jeopardy attaches itself to proceedings when the jury is empaneled and when the first witness has been sworn in. Once this point has come to pass, the defendant cannot be retried for the same crime. There are three situations where double jeopardy can be removed: mistrials, dismissals, or appeals. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004)
Case Scenario-Robbery and Assault
Do you feel that the jury in this case might be duly influenced by the defendant not taking the stand in his own defense? Why or why not? Explain your answer. There are a few things to look at in this question. First, let’s look at the job of a jury. A questionnaire is sent to eligible voters, taxpayers, or vehicle registration holders. Once filled out they are sent back to the courts, processed and filed, awaiting the date that has been set for jury selection. At the time of selection, jurors are asked questions by the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney. During this time the attorneys have a chance to refuse or accept a juror. After the jury is selected, then the date of the trial is set. The judge gives the jury a charge, a set of rules that jurors should follow when the jury is deciding a civil or criminal case. The charges are often discussed by the attorneys on both sides in the case and the judge in order to make sure their interests are represented and nothing prejudicial. (USLegal, 2001-2013) The job of a juror is most critical to the American legal system. You are depended upon to decide important issues. The promise you make to uphold the law and decide cases fairly and impartially should not be taken lightly. The judge will give the jury instructions and expectations that are required of them. A jury’s mind needs to be open minded with the issues and evidence that has been presented. There should not be any preconceived ideas or conclusions from anything outside of the court proceedings, this is what it means to be fair. (Nadeau Tina, n.d.)
Pre-trial publicity, social and political baggage can bring disruption to a courtroom. This can deny a defendant his or her right to a fair trial. Sometimes the publicity can be so pervasive that the trial would have to be moved to another venue. When a case is high profile it becomes difficult to find persons that have not been affected by the media or talk about town, therefore a possible fair trial for the defendant can be difficult. The defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial jury. What is turning out to be a very big problem is finding a jury that will base the verdict on the facts rather than what they think that the public wants. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004)
The self-incrimination clause, which is attached to the Fifth Amendment states that an individual has the right to disclose information that could be used against him or her in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this right is to inhibit the government from compelling a confession through force, coercion, or deception. It applies to any state or federal legal proceeding, whether it is civil, criminal, administrative, or judicial in nature. This privilege is frequently invoked during the trial phase of the legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under oath and asked questions on the witness stand. The self-incrimination clause is also asserted with some frequency during the pretrial phase of legal proceeding. In the pretrial phase of the criminal cases, it is usually asserted in response to pointed questions asked by law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and other government officials who are seeking to determine the persons responsible for a particular crime. During the pretrial phase of civil cases, parties may assert the right against self-incrimination when potentially damaging questions are posed in depositions and interrogatories. This clause took hold in English law with the seventeenth-century trial of John Liburne. Liburne was a puritan agitator who opposed British attempts to impose Anglican religious uniformity across England. In 1637, Liburne was prosecutes for attempting to smuggle several thousand Puritan pamphlets into England. Before the Star Chamber (an English court with jurisdiction to extinguish nonconformity in the realm), Liburne refused to take an oath requiring him to answer truthfully any question asked of him. He said that he could see that the court was trying to ensnare him, and he claimed that the law of God and the law of the land supported his right against self-accusation. Liburne was whipped and pilloried for refusing to take the oath. Parliament later declared his punishment illegal, abolished the Star Chamber and ultimately recognized the right of self-incrimination. (Farlex Inc, 2013)
A defendant can testify on their behalf, and the jury wants to hear from the defendant, because of the possibility that there is a good reason for the events that brought them to the court room. In testifying in their own defense could bring light onto the charges, and a very reasonable explanation such as: Entrapment, Self-defense, Duress Defense and Good Faith. Also issues can be clarified only by the defense. Things can quickly go from bad to worse, if a defendant waives their right to remain silent, prior convictions, inconsistent statements, and impeachment can be brought out before the court. Another reason testifying on their behalf can lead to unconscious burden shift, attorneys know how to word questions that can confuse the defendant and causing them to admit to something that they never intended for it to be said. The jury may also recognize that the accused’s testimony is self-serving. “The obvious truth is that once prior convictions are introduced the trial is, for all practical purposes, completed and the guilty outcome follows as a mere formality. This is true regardless of the care and caution by the court in instructing the jury.”[15] (Elliot C. Crawford/Attorney At Law, 2012)
Theory of Punishment
What theory of punishment would you apply in this case, and why?
Focus on theories of punishment for the defendant rather than the exact number of years to be sentenced. If there were no consequences to our actions, we would live in a total chaotic society. We would still be in a state of mind like: winner takes it all or whoever has the most toys wins. Punishment is a very familiar aspect of life. We are familiarized with its use in the family and in school; we use punishments of various types, with our kids, pets and each other. Believing that we understand the operation of punishment and we usually know what the outcome will be. With the use of positive confirmations such as rewards or reinforcements, we seek to encourage willingness to conform to various norms; by using negative punishments, endeavors are made to dishearten deviant behavior. Reward and punishment, the notion that people seek to maximize pleasure and avoid pain or discomfort has been a long as time immemorial. There are five theories of
punishment: 1. Retribution: “You’re going to get what‘s coming to you.” 2. Deterrence: “We’re going to punish you so that you won’t do it again.” And a variation: “We’re going to punish you so that others won’t do the same thing.” 3. Incapacitation: “As long as we have you locked up, you won’t be out doing something to us.” 4. Rehabilitation: “We will rehabilitate you so that you can know the errors of your previous way, perhaps learn a skill or trade, and be returned successfully to society, without the allure to repeat your criminality.” 5. Reintegration: “We will assist you after conviction to successfully integrate yourself as an active member of society, by the way of halfway houses or other institutions of reintegration.” (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004)
Conclusion
After researching all of the key factors, my opinion is as follows: The case scenario tells us about a prominent citizen being robbed and assaulted with a deadly weapon. The suspect was later apprehended and charges were brought against him. During the preliminary hearing the defendant was provided with an attorney, and because of the type of offense, bail was denied. During the trial the defendant chose not to take the witness stand in his own defense. He was convicted on multiple charges connected with the assault and is awaiting sentencing. The questions we were asked are fairly simple, I believe after all of the research I found. The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment prevents a defendant from being tried for the same thing twice, unless there are reasons that the clause can be taken off the table, he will not be charged for this offense again. If the jury holds true to the charge that the judge has given them, then the defendant not testifying on his own behalf should not hinder their decision. The self-incrimination clause that is attached to the Fifth Amendment allows the defendant the right to not say anything in his defense. By doing this he is keeping himself from being entrapped or from saying anything that could be used against him. This can be seen as an act of guilt, because the jury would most likely want to hear his side of the story, giving them something else to weigh in when they are released to deliberate. I chose three out of the theories of punishment that I think would be most appropriate. Deterrence: a form of punishment that seeks to discourage would be offenders from committing the same crimes for which a defendant has convicted. Rehabilitation: the manner in which a person or thing is handled, used or processed. The goal of treatment or therapy is to help the individual who has been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed or mentally ill to attain some level of improved functioning. Reintegration: this is an extension of rehabilitation, it attempts to compensate for the weakness of that approach while at the same time adopting more acceptable ideas. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004) In a perfect world this would be the perfection solution, but this is not a perfect world and we are still trying to figure out the perfect formula for crime and punishment.
References
Elliot C. Crawford/Attorney At Law. (2012, May 18). Retrieved from okdefense.com: http://okdefense.com/pros-cons-defendant-testifying/
Farlex Inc. (2013). Fifth Amendment. Retrieved from The Free Dictionary by Farlex: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fifth+amendment
Joy, P. A., & McMunigal, K. (2005). Why Should Prosecutors "Seek Justice"? Criminal Justice Magazine, Volume 20 Issue 2.
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From - To.
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.
Nadeau Tina, C. J. (n.d.). Juror Information for the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. Retrieved from Judicial Branch New Hampshire Juror Information: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/jury/index.htm
Pearson Prentice Hall. (2004). The Fifth Amendment Right Prohibiting Double Jeopardy. In L. Territo, J. B. Halsted, & M. L. Bromley, Crime And Justice In America, A Human Prespective (p. 133). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Post, T. (Director). (1968). Hang 'em High [Motion Picture].
Tucker, K. (2013). Demand Media. Retrieved from Houston Chronicle: http://work.chron.com/importance-ethics-criminal-justice-practitioner-6542.html
USLegal. (2001-2013). Retrieved from USLEGAL.com: http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jury-charge/
West 's Encyclopedia of American Law edition 2 The Gale Group, INC. (2008). Retrieved from Free Dictionary by Farlex: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy
Addendum
We are given a new twist in the Case-scenario/robbery and assault. Using the same case scenario as in the Phase 4 Individual Project, new information has been provided to the court, by the defense, that there was the possibility of misconduct on the part of the prosecution as it relates to the evidence that was presented in court used to convict the defendant. Specifically, the prosecution had in its possession certain exculpatory documents that would cast doubt on the reliability of certain witness statements used against the defendant. In addition, there is a strong possibility that some law enforcement witnesses may have embellished their testimony. First, we need to look at what the “Code of Ethics” stands for. When choosing a career in the criminal justice system, there are ethical standards, which provide guidelines for the conduct as an officer of the law. Without this, there would be very little meaning to the laws and an unstable justice system. Depending on your part in the justice system, ethics most likely dictate your communications with law-breakers, impact your decision-making processes and influence your interpretation of the law. Defense, are particularly if defending someone who might be guilty of criminal activity. The ethical standards are twofold: the client must be represented fairly and is warranted that the client doesn’t offer false testimony. The prosecutor has the burden of proof, taking every effort to present accurate and truthful statements. The defense have an ethical responsibility to show refrain from assisting clients to offer false testimony and encourages defendants to rectify false statements. (Tucker, 2013) Prosecution, like the defense, has ethical standards to maintain or a defendant might be punished for a crime he or she didn’t commit. It’s the prosecution’s ethical responsibility to provide honest, accurate testimony and supportive evidence to justify your claims. It is the prosecution’s responsibility to make sure that any evidence that has been tampered with or the knowledge of false testimony, not be used against the defendant. Only the complete facts are presented to the court. (Tucker, 2013) Law Enforcement, in the role of a police officer the role of ethics is critically important. Their response has to be quick, making life and death decisions and obtain correct legal evidence. If during the arresting phase the suspect is not given their Miranda rights, whatever they say may not hold up in court. Police officers have the same ethical responsibility as the officers of the court, to make non-biased, non-discriminatory, law-abiding and justifiable judgment to protect innocent citizens. (Tucker, 2013) Judge- According to Kristine Tucker of the Demand Media, “Ethics might be more important to judges than any other criminal justice practitioner because a judge must interpret the law fairly and independently without personal feelings, religious values, past experiences or self-promoting agenda that interfere with that responsibility.” A U.S. judge is expected to uphold the laws of the land and to protect its citizens along with the Constitution. (Tucker, 2013) There are a few rationales for treating prosecutors differently. A prosecutor at times has to act differently than a defense attorney for the fact that a prosecutor represents the government and not the defendant. Some of the ethical rules that a prosecutor must follow are these: Protecting against abuse of power, Asymmetry of resources, Public confidence in the justice system, Promotes open government. If either side refuses to step out of their adversarial role, a guilty person may go free or an innocent person may be found guilty. The system of justice does not weigh these two risks equally. (Joy & McMunigal, 2005) I believe that if these requirements can enhance the justice system, if the officers were held strongly to them. Penalties or fines should be enforced, so that the officers of the justice system would think twice before making an error. If it is proven that there were discrepancies during the trial, then this would result in a mistrial could be ordered and the whole process begins again. Also, if a mistrial s not declared, the defendant could walk away with the Double Jeopardy protection. Through this entire course, I have gained confidence in our justice system, it is a very good system if egos could stay out of it. I close this paper with a quote from one of my favorite movies, I was reminded of it while researching the judge’s ethical responsibilities.
JUDGE ADAM FENTON
You think I judged him too harshly? Used him for kindling my fire of justice? Well, maybe that 's inevitable when there 's only one man, one court, with the power of final justice over a territory that 's five times the size of most states. Mistakes? Oh, I 've made 'em, Cooper. Don 't you doubt about that. Don 't you doubt, either, there are times sitting up there in that judgment seat I wished, I prayed, that there was someone standing between me and God Almighty - someone with the power to say, "You 're wrong, Fenton. You 've made an error in law - that this man deserves another trial, this man here a reprieve, this man is innocent." But until this territory becomes a state with a governor and a state court of appeals, I am the law here - all the law. If you don 't like that, you can cuss me till hell freezes over... or you can join me, Cooper; even fight me. Help me turn this God forsaken territory into a state where no one man calls himself the law. (Post, 1968)
Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................. 2
Double Jeopardy....................................................................................................3
Case Scenario-Robbery and Assault…………………………………………….3
Theory of Punishment……………………………………………………………6
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..7
References..............................................................................................................8
Addendum……………………………………………………………………..…9
Abstract
In this Phase 4 research paper we are asked to read a case scenario about a prominent member of the community being robbed and assaulted with a deadly weapon, and form an opinion, setting up an outline for further in depth study. The case scenario we were given is this: Around 2:30 p.m. on the afternoon of September 18, the victim, a prominent citizen in the …show more content…
community, was assaulted and robbed of his wallet by the defendant while walking home from work. He was assaulted, pushed up against a car, and threatened with a knife. Because of the victim 's prominence in the community, this crime generated a great deal of media attention, calling for a quick arrest and conviction of the person or persons who committed the crime, which resulted in heavy pressure being placed on the police to make an arrest. The defendant was apprehended several days later while carrying the victim’s wallet and a knife. The victim subsequently identified the defendant in a lineup. During the preliminary hearing, the defendant was declared indigent and provided with a public defender. Because of the nature of the offense, bail was denied. The defendant, who chose not to take the stand in his own defense during the trial, was convicted on multiple charges connected with the assault and is awaiting sentencing.
Phase 4 Case Scenario
Double Jeopardy
At what stage in the criminal justice process does double jeopardy attach itself to the proceedings? Why? Explain your answer.
What is Double Jeopardy? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “[no person shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.” (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004) This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitutions, statutes and common law. (West 's Encyclopedia of American Law edition 2 The Gale Group, INC, 2008) This is so fundamental to the United States Constitution, that is has been incorporated by due process in the Fourteenth Amendments binding it to the states, also. Double Jeopardy attaches itself to proceedings when the jury is empaneled and when the first witness has been sworn in. Once this point has come to pass, the defendant cannot be retried for the same crime. There are three situations where double jeopardy can be removed: mistrials, dismissals, or appeals. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004)
Case Scenario-Robbery and Assault
Do you feel that the jury in this case might be duly influenced by the defendant not taking the stand in his own defense? Why or why not? Explain your answer. There are a few things to look at in this question. First, let’s look at the job of a jury. A questionnaire is sent to eligible voters, taxpayers, or vehicle registration holders. Once filled out they are sent back to the courts, processed and filed, awaiting the date that has been set for jury selection. At the time of selection, jurors are asked questions by the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney. During this time the attorneys have a chance to refuse or accept a juror. After the jury is selected, then the date of the trial is set. The judge gives the jury a charge, a set of rules that jurors should follow when the jury is deciding a civil or criminal case. The charges are often discussed by the attorneys on both sides in the case and the judge in order to make sure their interests are represented and nothing prejudicial. (USLegal, 2001-2013) The job of a juror is most critical to the American legal system. You are depended upon to decide important issues. The promise you make to uphold the law and decide cases fairly and impartially should not be taken lightly. The judge will give the jury instructions and expectations that are required of them. A jury’s mind needs to be open minded with the issues and evidence that has been presented. There should not be any preconceived ideas or conclusions from anything outside of the court proceedings, this is what it means to be fair. (Nadeau Tina, n.d.)
Pre-trial publicity, social and political baggage can bring disruption to a courtroom. This can deny a defendant his or her right to a fair trial. Sometimes the publicity can be so pervasive that the trial would have to be moved to another venue. When a case is high profile it becomes difficult to find persons that have not been affected by the media or talk about town, therefore a possible fair trial for the defendant can be difficult. The defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial jury. What is turning out to be a very big problem is finding a jury that will base the verdict on the facts rather than what they think that the public wants. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004)
The self-incrimination clause, which is attached to the Fifth Amendment states that an individual has the right to disclose information that could be used against him or her in a criminal prosecution. The purpose of this right is to inhibit the government from compelling a confession through force, coercion, or deception. It applies to any state or federal legal proceeding, whether it is civil, criminal, administrative, or judicial in nature. This privilege is frequently invoked during the trial phase of the legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under oath and asked questions on the witness stand. The self-incrimination clause is also asserted with some frequency during the pretrial phase of legal proceeding. In the pretrial phase of the criminal cases, it is usually asserted in response to pointed questions asked by law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and other government officials who are seeking to determine the persons responsible for a particular crime. During the pretrial phase of civil cases, parties may assert the right against self-incrimination when potentially damaging questions are posed in depositions and interrogatories. This clause took hold in English law with the seventeenth-century trial of John Liburne. Liburne was a puritan agitator who opposed British attempts to impose Anglican religious uniformity across England. In 1637, Liburne was prosecutes for attempting to smuggle several thousand Puritan pamphlets into England. Before the Star Chamber (an English court with jurisdiction to extinguish nonconformity in the realm), Liburne refused to take an oath requiring him to answer truthfully any question asked of him. He said that he could see that the court was trying to ensnare him, and he claimed that the law of God and the law of the land supported his right against self-accusation. Liburne was whipped and pilloried for refusing to take the oath. Parliament later declared his punishment illegal, abolished the Star Chamber and ultimately recognized the right of self-incrimination. (Farlex Inc, 2013)
A defendant can testify on their behalf, and the jury wants to hear from the defendant, because of the possibility that there is a good reason for the events that brought them to the court room. In testifying in their own defense could bring light onto the charges, and a very reasonable explanation such as: Entrapment, Self-defense, Duress Defense and Good Faith. Also issues can be clarified only by the defense. Things can quickly go from bad to worse, if a defendant waives their right to remain silent, prior convictions, inconsistent statements, and impeachment can be brought out before the court. Another reason testifying on their behalf can lead to unconscious burden shift, attorneys know how to word questions that can confuse the defendant and causing them to admit to something that they never intended for it to be said. The jury may also recognize that the accused’s testimony is self-serving. “The obvious truth is that once prior convictions are introduced the trial is, for all practical purposes, completed and the guilty outcome follows as a mere formality. This is true regardless of the care and caution by the court in instructing the jury.”[15] (Elliot C. Crawford/Attorney At Law, 2012)
Theory of Punishment
What theory of punishment would you apply in this case, and why?
Focus on theories of punishment for the defendant rather than the exact number of years to be sentenced. If there were no consequences to our actions, we would live in a total chaotic society. We would still be in a state of mind like: winner takes it all or whoever has the most toys wins. Punishment is a very familiar aspect of life. We are familiarized with its use in the family and in school; we use punishments of various types, with our kids, pets and each other. Believing that we understand the operation of punishment and we usually know what the outcome will be. With the use of positive confirmations such as rewards or reinforcements, we seek to encourage willingness to conform to various norms; by using negative punishments, endeavors are made to dishearten deviant behavior. Reward and punishment, the notion that people seek to maximize pleasure and avoid pain or discomfort has been a long as time immemorial. There are five theories of
punishment: 1. Retribution: “You’re going to get what‘s coming to you.” 2. Deterrence: “We’re going to punish you so that you won’t do it again.” And a variation: “We’re going to punish you so that others won’t do the same thing.” 3. Incapacitation: “As long as we have you locked up, you won’t be out doing something to us.” 4. Rehabilitation: “We will rehabilitate you so that you can know the errors of your previous way, perhaps learn a skill or trade, and be returned successfully to society, without the allure to repeat your criminality.” 5. Reintegration: “We will assist you after conviction to successfully integrate yourself as an active member of society, by the way of halfway houses or other institutions of reintegration.” (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004)
Conclusion
After researching all of the key factors, my opinion is as follows: The case scenario tells us about a prominent citizen being robbed and assaulted with a deadly weapon. The suspect was later apprehended and charges were brought against him. During the preliminary hearing the defendant was provided with an attorney, and because of the type of offense, bail was denied. During the trial the defendant chose not to take the witness stand in his own defense. He was convicted on multiple charges connected with the assault and is awaiting sentencing. The questions we were asked are fairly simple, I believe after all of the research I found. The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment prevents a defendant from being tried for the same thing twice, unless there are reasons that the clause can be taken off the table, he will not be charged for this offense again. If the jury holds true to the charge that the judge has given them, then the defendant not testifying on his own behalf should not hinder their decision. The self-incrimination clause that is attached to the Fifth Amendment allows the defendant the right to not say anything in his defense. By doing this he is keeping himself from being entrapped or from saying anything that could be used against him. This can be seen as an act of guilt, because the jury would most likely want to hear his side of the story, giving them something else to weigh in when they are released to deliberate. I chose three out of the theories of punishment that I think would be most appropriate. Deterrence: a form of punishment that seeks to discourage would be offenders from committing the same crimes for which a defendant has convicted. Rehabilitation: the manner in which a person or thing is handled, used or processed. The goal of treatment or therapy is to help the individual who has been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed or mentally ill to attain some level of improved functioning. Reintegration: this is an extension of rehabilitation, it attempts to compensate for the weakness of that approach while at the same time adopting more acceptable ideas. (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004) In a perfect world this would be the perfection solution, but this is not a perfect world and we are still trying to figure out the perfect formula for crime and punishment.
References
Elliot C. Crawford/Attorney At Law. (2012, May 18). Retrieved from okdefense.com: http://okdefense.com/pros-cons-defendant-testifying/
Farlex Inc. (2013). Fifth Amendment. Retrieved from The Free Dictionary by Farlex: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fifth+amendment
Joy, P. A., & McMunigal, K. (2005). Why Should Prosecutors "Seek Justice"? Criminal Justice Magazine, Volume 20 Issue 2.
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From - To.
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.
Nadeau Tina, C. J. (n.d.). Juror Information for the New Hampshire Judicial Branch. Retrieved from Judicial Branch New Hampshire Juror Information: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/jury/index.htm
Pearson Prentice Hall. (2004). The Fifth Amendment Right Prohibiting Double Jeopardy. In L. Territo, J. B. Halsted, & M. L. Bromley, Crime And Justice In America, A Human Prespective (p. 133). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Post, T. (Director). (1968). Hang 'em High [Motion Picture].
Tucker, K. (2013). Demand Media. Retrieved from Houston Chronicle: http://work.chron.com/importance-ethics-criminal-justice-practitioner-6542.html
USLegal. (2001-2013). Retrieved from USLEGAL.com: http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jury-charge/
West 's Encyclopedia of American Law edition 2 The Gale Group, INC. (2008). Retrieved from Free Dictionary by Farlex: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy
Addendum
We are given a new twist in the Case-scenario/robbery and assault. Using the same case scenario as in the Phase 4 Individual Project, new information has been provided to the court, by the defense, that there was the possibility of misconduct on the part of the prosecution as it relates to the evidence that was presented in court used to convict the defendant. Specifically, the prosecution had in its possession certain exculpatory documents that would cast doubt on the reliability of certain witness statements used against the defendant. In addition, there is a strong possibility that some law enforcement witnesses may have embellished their testimony. First, we need to look at what the “Code of Ethics” stands for. When choosing a career in the criminal justice system, there are ethical standards, which provide guidelines for the conduct as an officer of the law. Without this, there would be very little meaning to the laws and an unstable justice system. Depending on your part in the justice system, ethics most likely dictate your communications with law-breakers, impact your decision-making processes and influence your interpretation of the law. Defense, are particularly if defending someone who might be guilty of criminal activity. The ethical standards are twofold: the client must be represented fairly and is warranted that the client doesn’t offer false testimony. The prosecutor has the burden of proof, taking every effort to present accurate and truthful statements. The defense have an ethical responsibility to show refrain from assisting clients to offer false testimony and encourages defendants to rectify false statements. (Tucker, 2013) Prosecution, like the defense, has ethical standards to maintain or a defendant might be punished for a crime he or she didn’t commit. It’s the prosecution’s ethical responsibility to provide honest, accurate testimony and supportive evidence to justify your claims. It is the prosecution’s responsibility to make sure that any evidence that has been tampered with or the knowledge of false testimony, not be used against the defendant. Only the complete facts are presented to the court. (Tucker, 2013) Law Enforcement, in the role of a police officer the role of ethics is critically important. Their response has to be quick, making life and death decisions and obtain correct legal evidence. If during the arresting phase the suspect is not given their Miranda rights, whatever they say may not hold up in court. Police officers have the same ethical responsibility as the officers of the court, to make non-biased, non-discriminatory, law-abiding and justifiable judgment to protect innocent citizens. (Tucker, 2013) Judge- According to Kristine Tucker of the Demand Media, “Ethics might be more important to judges than any other criminal justice practitioner because a judge must interpret the law fairly and independently without personal feelings, religious values, past experiences or self-promoting agenda that interfere with that responsibility.” A U.S. judge is expected to uphold the laws of the land and to protect its citizens along with the Constitution. (Tucker, 2013) There are a few rationales for treating prosecutors differently. A prosecutor at times has to act differently than a defense attorney for the fact that a prosecutor represents the government and not the defendant. Some of the ethical rules that a prosecutor must follow are these: Protecting against abuse of power, Asymmetry of resources, Public confidence in the justice system, Promotes open government. If either side refuses to step out of their adversarial role, a guilty person may go free or an innocent person may be found guilty. The system of justice does not weigh these two risks equally. (Joy & McMunigal, 2005) I believe that if these requirements can enhance the justice system, if the officers were held strongly to them. Penalties or fines should be enforced, so that the officers of the justice system would think twice before making an error. If it is proven that there were discrepancies during the trial, then this would result in a mistrial could be ordered and the whole process begins again. Also, if a mistrial s not declared, the defendant could walk away with the Double Jeopardy protection. Through this entire course, I have gained confidence in our justice system, it is a very good system if egos could stay out of it. I close this paper with a quote from one of my favorite movies, I was reminded of it while researching the judge’s ethical responsibilities.
JUDGE ADAM FENTON
You think I judged him too harshly? Used him for kindling my fire of justice? Well, maybe that 's inevitable when there 's only one man, one court, with the power of final justice over a territory that 's five times the size of most states. Mistakes? Oh, I 've made 'em, Cooper. Don 't you doubt about that. Don 't you doubt, either, there are times sitting up there in that judgment seat I wished, I prayed, that there was someone standing between me and God Almighty - someone with the power to say, "You 're wrong, Fenton. You 've made an error in law - that this man deserves another trial, this man here a reprieve, this man is innocent." But until this territory becomes a state with a governor and a state court of appeals, I am the law here - all the law. If you don 't like that, you can cuss me till hell freezes over... or you can join me, Cooper; even fight me. Help me turn this God forsaken territory into a state where no one man calls himself the law. (Post, 1968)