Discretion And The Criminal Justice

The use of Ethics and Discretion in the Criminal Justice Field In the criminal justice field, discretion is extremely important. Discretion ensures the safety of the individuals involved, and is defined as the power or right to choose or art according to one’s own judgement. Ethics are the foundation of the criminal justice system, and it helps us develop good moral reasoning, helps us define criminal activity, and what tell us what society deems as suitable punishment for actions we carry out, good or bad.

Police officers are faced each day with a vast array of situations with which they must deal. No two situations they encounter are ever the same, even when examines a large number of situations over an extended period of time. The officers are usually in the position of having to make decisions on how to handle a specific matter alone, or with little additional advice and without immediate supervision. This is the heart of police discretion. As we shall find, the exercise of discretion by police has benefits and problems associated with such exercise. The unfettered use of discretion can

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

The judge is the referee between the Crown and the defence who aim to prove their side of the story. The judge ensures both the prosecution and the defence meet the rules of evidence. Consequently, he decides whether the evidence provided

This research paper is on racial discrimination in our criminal justice system. Criminal justice professional is held to a higher standard and they are expected to make ethical decisions when dealing with the public. However, there are few who will be unethical in their jobs and forgot their oath of office. This paper will show the different type of racial discrimination in our criminal justice systems, particularly to individuals who deal directly with the courts, jail and the public. Racial discrimination isn’t just black against white, racial discrimination is also against Hispanic. I will discuss some of the issues with unethical cases involving the Criminal Justice System.

Discretion is the ability to act based on an induvial assessment of a situation, rather than having laws that attempt to dictate every possible situation. Discretion is a fundamental principle in the Australian criminal justice system. It plays a key role in multiple processes, including the investigation, bail, trial and in sentencing. Discretion is beneficial to the criminal justice system but is not without reproach.

Judges are a lot like police officers in that they hold a great amount of discretionary power in their courtrooms and their judgments. Judges are required to ensure that the accused is given a fair trial, while also ensuring that the best interest of the public is maintained. There is a great amount of pressure placed on judges today with excessive case loads and pressures from the media and other outside sources.

In the criminal justice system, discretion is often performed by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries, correctional officials and

See Robert L. Misner, Recasting Prosecutorial Discretion, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminolcxiy 717, 726 (1996) (detailing the relative resources spent on corrections versus those spent on legal services).

From our class sessions, in order to hand down a ruling, a judge must first interpret the law before applying it to the case. Moreover, judges have other important responsibilities in the courtroom, such as admitting/denying evidence, instructing the jury, safeguarding the defendant 's rights and state 's interests in justice, upholding dignity, showing fairness, handing down sentences, discriminating/indiscriminating sentencing structures, even having to consider probation sanctions to impose on probationers. For instance, near the end of the proceeding, the judge instructed the jury about giving a verdict and the upcoming agenda for when they are to decide guilt or innocence. The judge played an active role in ensuring there is fairness on both sides of the prosecution and defense.

So DACA affects a many different immigrants from all parts of the world not just the Hispanic population. To really get an understanding of how the current public policy DACA has come into play. We first must know its origins.

Judges are public officers chosen to rule and administer the law in a court of justice. Whether it comes to cases that have to do with criminal prosecutions or civil lawsuits, the job of the judiciary is to serve as a fair and unprejudiced judge. Judicial power is given in order to

In this chapter on the section about the discretionary power of intake officers it says that in some jurisdictions, intake officers have access to several alternative indicators of a juvenile’s behavior, both past and future, through screening instruments that help to measure one’s risk or likelihood of reoffending (Merlo, 2016). These intake officers have a very tough job because what they observe and hear from the juvenile offenders does have more of an influence on the court’s decision of the juvenile’s ultimate fate in the system. Obviously through years of experience and having access to the juveniles history, will allow them to make the best decision but just like that video we watched about the young boy named Morris, the intake officer

Law enforcement have multiple responsible and duties, officers investigate crimes, gather and protect evidence and take reports on various crimes. In addition, officers have the power arrest offenders, and give testimony in court. Thus, law enforcement personnel ensure that charges against offenders are strong enough to stand up in court. The second component of the criminal justice is the courts. This aspect of the criminal justice system includes prosecution and defense lawyers, judges and juries. These individuals make sure and enforce every offender are given fair trials regardless of race, gender, or religion. Judges, also known as