The Penalty Phase - Essay Example

To add on this, the jury already had a verdict; Esherman was guilty of more than 30 charges against him. He was convicted of mutilating, raping and murdering 17 teenage girls. Shortly after this verdict was given, Hoffman is tipped by about violation of the defendant’s rights during interrogation. He finds out that the evidences used against Esherman were not obtained legally. The search warrant used was invalid thus the arresting officers had violated Esherman’s constitutional rights. This renders the whole procedure void.

Further probing reveals corruption on part of the district attorneys and lawyers, some of whom are running on Hoffman’s political slate. Hoffman realizes that if he undertakes the appropriate legal action, he will definitely destroy his political career. He is caught in the middle of a legal storm and is faced with a profound legal dilemma: Should he honor every stroke of the law, and incur public wrath and loose every hope of being re-elected or should he deliver justice to the perpetrator and risk destroying his political life?

The ethical dilemma from the perspective of each main character The main characters in the movie are Hoffman, Esherman, the prosecutor, and Hoffman’s main opponent, Susan Jansen. Hoffman feels that he has a legal obligation to defend the rule of law and consequently Esherman’s rights. . According to them, nothing should be reversed in favor of Esherman and this is seen when Jansen takes advantage of the media coverage to popularize an image of Hoffman as a liberal who is soft on criminals.

How the dilemma was resolved Hoffman’s ultimate actions and rationale represents the part of the movie that was splendidly executed. Having considered his personal, public and legal interests, Hoffman decided to rule the case in favor of Esherman. Through a clear interpretation of the law and especially in regard to the legality of evidences, Hoffman declared the whole process invalid because of the violation of the defendants and the corruption involved. He based his exclusion of the evidence on the way it was obtained.

In doing so, Hoffman already beat his opponents by throwing the blame to the police for their unwarranted conduct when collecting evidence and satisfying the interests of the public by according justice to Esherman. The kind of ethical framework that best describes how the dilemma was analyzed and resolved. The kind of ethical framework that describes how the dilemma was analyzed and resolved is the need for zealous prosecution. This ethical framework requires that legal professionals should not only seek to prosecute.

They should also seek for justice for the offenders including those found guilty. This framework is based on ethical theories like rule utilitarianism. This theory supports the exclusionary rule because the long-term impacts of allowing illegal police behaviour will be more costly than allowing one criminal free. This framework therefore supports the power to use discretion among judges. Pollock (2004) explains that the use of discretion occurs in