Interaction between Police and the Courts - Research Paper Example

? Interaction Between Police, Prosecutors, and the Courts Inserts His /Her Inserts Grade Inserts 9 August 2011 Interaction between police, prosecutors, and the Courts There is a continuing interaction among the police, prosecutors, and the courts of law. The police officers have their fixed set of duties as well as responsibilities to implement. In the same light, the court has its own set of duties and responsibilities to comply with. Finally, the prosecutors have their own set of responsibilities and duties to uphold. The smooth and well orchestrated interaction between police, prosecutors, and the courts is necessary to keep the peace and economic viability of the community. The police officers keep the criminals and persons under trial in jail while they are processed for trial. When convicted by the courts of law, the police officers will jail the convicted person in jail the serve the jail sentence handed down by the courts of law. The prosecutors present evidences to the courts to prove the guilt of the persons charged. The courts determine whether the person charged is guilty or innocent of the crime charged. The police officers must ensure that they will implement a high quality investigation to feret out the criminals from the innocent persons as the officers roam the streets of the United States community. The police officers should take extra care of the evidences gathered in order to ensure that the court’s verdict will be correct. The police officers’ presentation of falsified evidences may result to the court’s erroneous verdict. The erroneous verdict may be to convict an innocent person because of circumstantial evidence. Another erroneous verdict is to declare innocence a person of a crime due to some legal technicalities. One such legal technically is the police officer’s gathering of evidences by using force on a person, against the person’s will. The police officer may stick a gun on the person’s face and make such person sign a letter stating the person is the person is the killer of person who committed the crime being charged. The challenges that these entities face while interacting with one another The prosecutor is the person who must ensure all legal technicalities are adhered to when transacting with the police officers and the courts of law. The prosecutor must ensure that the court will receive case evidences as a basis for issuing a guilty verdict as well as issue court ruling using legal doctrines. For example, the prosecutor must use the proper section or law references to back up one’s thesis. The court is challenged to prioritize cases. For example, the court must prioritize cases where the person accused is being held under lock and key by the police officers. The court must ensure that the police officers and the prosecutors do not violate the basic rights of the accused persons during their incarceration. For example, Samuel Walker (1993) emphasized “The videotaped beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers on March 3, 1991--an event that electrified the country—dramatized the problem of police discretion. The officers involved acted out their worst impulses, obviously believing they would never be caught or punished. The fact that a sergeant was present and that the officers later discussed the incident over the police radio is the most damning evidence of their sense of immunity”. The above Rodney King case shows an extreme of the American justice system. The police officers took the law into their own hands. They manhandled the victim, Rodney King of Los Angeles, California. Consequently, the prosecutors must put into motion its duty to gather enough evidences to prosecute the abusive Los Angeles police officers. The police officers must do their best to reduce the crime rate in the community. In their frustration over the unabated crime incidents, some police officers may be triggered to act irrationally. The police officers must uphold the rights of the accused. One of the rights of the accused is to be presumed innocent. Physical abuse, as experienced by Rodney King, is a very clear indication that some of the police officers in our country lack the discipline or temperament to treat suspects and criminals as human beings. This is understandable. A person, especially the police officer, who eyewitnesses a crime would surely fume madly and act to avenge the person killed by the suspect in front of the eyewitness. This is what happened in the case of Rodney King. In addition, Clarice Feinman (1994) reiterated “Despite recent court decisions and legislation intended to eliminate sex-based discrimination in employment, the correctional system remains the most sex-segregated, male-dominated component of the criminal justice system. Women in the system have been attempting to replace the sex-segregated structure with one that offers them equal employment opportunities in central administrative offices, in training academies, and in all institutions”. Further, the judges should not discriminate against persons because of their age, gender, religion, political affiliation, and other areas. The prosecutor should be reasonable in terms of charging clients for using the prosecutor’s court services. There are various challenges that the police, prosecutors, and court. For example, the police have a difficult time to implement the court’s verdict to jail a person convicted of a crime because the convicted person can not be caught, when at large. For example, David O’Brien (2000) theorized “The court grants a full hearing to only around one hundred of the over eight thousand cases on the docket each term. When cases are granted full consideration, attorneys for each side submit briefs "on the merits" setting forth their arguments and how they think the case should be decided. The Clerk of the Court circulates the briefs to each chamber and sets a date for the attorneys to argue their views orally before the justices. After hearing oral arguments, the justices in private conference vote on how to decide the issues presented in a case”. In addition, the police officers may not be able to gather enough evidences to present to the prosecutors needed to convict the person charged in a court of law. The court may commit an error sending a court order to arrest a person whose name has been misspelled to the wrong police station. The court may commit errors in implementing its role as justice arbiter. The court of law may issue a court order that wrongly spells out a convicted person’s name. Consequently, the police will erroneously arrest the wrong person. In addition, the prosecutor may lack the legal expertise to present convincing evidences to convict a person who commits a crime. The court of law may erroneous accept fabricated evidences by the police and the prosecutor. The court judge may lack the expertise to decide whether to accept or reject evidences presented by the prosecutors and those evidences erroneously or fraudulently collected by the police officers assigned to the crime being prosecuted. In addition, Sarah Menesh (2002) opined the court may erroneously interpret evidences presented by police officers and the prosecutors. Consequently, the court may erroneously convict an innocent person due to evidences that are falsely or erroneously presented by the police officers or prosecutors. In the same light, the court may commit errors in implementing “not guilty” pleas to persons because the police and the prosecutors were not innovative enough to gather enough evidences to win a conviction of the person who, in reality, commits robbery with murder and other crimes on persons, property, and others. In addition, 2002, the United States Supreme Court reviews the cases of the lower courts for possible approval or reversion of the lower court’s decision making. The lower court, the court of appeals, focuses on case which had been decided by courts which are lower in stature than the court of appeals. The lower courts show that one party (the complainant with the assistance of the prosecutor) will try one’s best to show to the entire world that the suspect is guilty of the crime charged (2002). The disputes or crime hearings are held in the Unite States courts of law. Fairness in the process of crime hearings is taken into consideration the evidences presented by the prosecutor as well as the lawyer of the accused for being charged in. Fairness includes the police officer’s task of presenting evidences that will increase the probability of generating a favorable court decision. The fairness must also mean the votes of the court jury as they decide whether to convict the person charged for crime within the United States. Based on the above discussion, there is a continuing communication among the police, prosecutors, and the courts. The police officers must implement their sworn set of duties as well as responsibilities to keep the peace needed for the economy to grow. In the same light, the court has religiously put into motion its own set of job descriptions and responsibilities. Finally, the prosecutors must put into motion their own set of responsibilities and duties to uphold. Indeed, the smooth and well organized interaction between police, prosecutors, and the courts is necessary to keep the peace and economic viability of the community. References Beneth, S. (2002). The U.S. Court of Appeals. New York: LFB Press. Feinman, C. (1994). Women in the Criminal Justice System. New York: Praeger Press. Menesh, S. (2002). The U.S. Court of Appeals. New York: LFB Scholarly. Walker, S. (1993). Taming the System: The Control of Discretion In Criminal Justice . New York: Oxford University Press. Read More