Ethics in criminal justice administration - Essay Example

The prosecutor may come up with substantial evidence against the accused, but a professional defense lawyer could try to refute all of them using the specific guideliness involved in the law. This means that a case of the criminal could be win in the court because of the associated professionalism of holding on to the law. In other words, there could be probable linked up dilemma when it comes to ethics and professionalism in the criminal justice administration. There is also associated managerial approach when it comes to professional administration.

One could potentially see this on the legalistic relationship between guards and the prisoners (Banks, 2004, p.134). However, guarding ethically would also mean doing the right thing, and performing what is right. This means that the coverage of criminal justice administration would go far beyond the bound of being legalistic in the administration of law, but ensuring what is the appropriate for the welfare of the prisoners. Thus, the criminal justice administrators would be able to ensure the elimination of corrupt practices and make sure of fair treatment based on the context of law (Banks, 2004, p.134). However, ethics and professional behavior in the administration of criminal justice may potentially contradict.

Professional behavoir may substantially pave the way for what seems to be right and appropriate. For example, the professional behavior of the defense lawyer may be proven by his ability to interpret the law and justify his reasons. Concerning this, there is a good chance for him to win the case of his client, who in reality should be guilty of a certain crime. This only implies that the presence of professionalism by simply adhering to the law has significant drawback as it may potentially conceal what is ethically appropriate.

In professionalism, a defense lawyer for instance could orchestrate evidences that may sound appropriate for the law, but the bottom line is to nullify the value of the presented evidences by the prosecutors and the witnesses. In other words, with professionalism, one would be able to win a case because of underlying technicalities involved within the context of law. Those who have strong interpretation of the law may be able to come up with a significant argument and supplement it with further proofs that could stand beyond reasonable doubt.

It is therefore most likely for them to administer justice with their ability to persuade the court of what seems to be in line with law. Thus, provided that there is no substantial evidence, but in reality the accused is guilty, but there is no appropriate proofs beyond reasonable doubt, a professional defense lawyer may significantly win the case of his client. There is absence of ethics here especially if the accused who happens to be guilty will remain unpunished and acquitted. Certainly, it is not the right thing to do to find the murderer not guilty of the crime committed.

However, there is a good chance for those who are professional enough to interpret the law and include substantial reasoning to target acquittal. In this case, justice administration may be a failure especially from the point of view of the prosecution and the victim. This also works the other way around, by which the culprit faces his sentence even on the crime he has not actually committed. This is due to the fact that the presented evidence was so strong that the prosecution team was professional enou