Why it is Important for those in the Criminal Justice field to have good character - Research Paper Example

Law 8 October Why it is Important for those in the Criminal Justice Field to have Good Character Introduction The professionals in the criminal justice field have always been under public scrutiny for their performance and the way they execute their roles. Various people who assist or serve in distinguished capacities of the criminal justice system include the judges, legislators, prosecutors, prison supervisors, police officers and advocates among others. They are all faced by challenging situations that put to test, their moral conduct, but have to take responsibility and execute their functions ethically. In a way, they hold a special position, which they can exploit to influence citizens, offenders, co-workers, and least themselves into having a sense of what is right and wrong. The public servants The criminal justice system is a central institution which any public member expresses some form of trust in. Citizens call the police for help and have their cases taken t to court because they have the confidence that those in these positions will serve them with loyalty, courage and honesty. According to Pollock, being a public servant in criminal justice field entails performing special duties involving the public trust; and as such they take oaths to be guardians of public interest (6). Their positions are those of leaders with a great impact on the public. The public looks at them with much expectation, to commit themselves to the assigned roles (whether to govern or guard the people) and do the right thing without taking advantage of them. It is a challenging job that requires refraining from unethical compromises in the field. However, despite the being paid from the public funds, some servants do not live to fulfill their promise and have been involved in corrupt acts and intimidation cases while on duty. These are people who have been entrusted with the public interests, but use their positions to enrich and serve themselves, which is an abuse of office. It would be unfair if the public is left to be led or served by servants who harass, deceive, and are unreliable or disloyal to them. As a public member, one would expect the police to arrest criminals and the judges to be available and decide with fairness, but not to free a criminal just because he is willing to part with a bundle of cash. Public servants ought to have exemplary standards, be reliable and available when needed, talk and exercise honesty with respect and without compromise. For the purpose of discretional powers The manner in which each one of them can make a decision in duty is fundamental. Those who work in the field have to make official decisions using their reasonable judgment and at least guided by the law in discharging of public duties. The decisions they make are arguably different, but in general, they involve power over others, whom they guard or govern. Good characters would lead them to make right decisions from the acceptable alternatives, instead of abusing the allotted discretional powers. In Article III and section 2of the US constitution, the judiciary is granted broad discretional powers that the jury can use while handling cases. Each is faced with choices; judges can approve or disapprove a case, police can arrest or release a suspect, legislators can point to legal or illegal behaviors punishable by law, and the correctional officers can either fail or offer counsel to the inmates, depending on how they use their discretional powers. However, the choices they make have to be within their powers, and free from third party influence, which calls for their good character. The decisions made have to be out of good faith, for proper and logical reasons after considering various issues or evidences (Ombudsman Western Australia “Guidelines: Exercise of discretion”). The public lies at the risk of being intimidated or even denied freedom by professionals who abuse their discretional powers in the field; to deny people their rights in the areas professionals’ portrays conflicts of interest. Upholding and enforcing the law All those working in the criminal justice field are expected to carry themselves with integrity and strict adherence of the law they serve. It is because there is crime in the society that they are placed in their respective capacities to help deter, punish, and correct by handling offenders, while still supporting justice. Therefore, they are well knowledgeable and trained in law or at least in matters related to law enforcement. More so, some like the jury may need to undergo vetting to qualify for their positions, which is affirmed by their characters and past performance. In other words, if those on the frontline in law enforcement poses unethical characters, are exemplary figures of indiscipline and law rebels, how fit are they then to counsel, judge, punish, and correct the society, least to properly address these issues? Cases of police cover ups, concealing the truth, falsification of reports, and intentional exclusion of evidence are yielded by unethical and bad characters (“The interaction” 4-6). A police with good character and ethics understands that law enforcement is beyond the cultures and titles people have; hence they can arrest an offender regardless of his position (for example the jury, parliament members or a commoner), wealth, or fame (celebrity, heirs of prominent persons), provided there is substantial evidence. The same case should apply to the jury to convict and punish every suspect proven guilty, without bias. Attorneys, lawyers and advocates have a moral obligation to correctly counsel their clients in legal issues. Offering justice is a long process that begins with police activities, to the courtroom, and probably in prison. Unless the process is handled by professionals with good ethics and positive characters, it would be a total failure in the public domain; good evidence brought forth could be lost, ignored or doctored to imply something else. For purposes of protecting the constitution safeguards in the legal system Every nation or state has a constitution, which is the principle guardian of the activities in a state, how the powers are created and delegated in the government, as well as how and where they should be applied. The judiciary field is bestowed not only with discretional powers, but entrusted to execute justice where it is due. It is reasonable therefore to say that those who work within the field are technical implementers of what is stipulated in the constitution. With that, each citizen deserves equal protection and fair judgment without any manner of bias because the law written in the constitution governs all men (Pollock 6). It is safer for the government and public to have responsible professionals that commit themselves to following the rules of law in execution of duties. Their characters are central to the image of the legal system and they should refrain from any behavior that subjects the system to public criticism and doubt on the law. The people and government or institution that employs them, trust they can use their moral characters to deliver justice without oppression. Over the past, various cases involving discrimination of women (especially the prostitutes), unfair treatment by waders and police, and brutal harassment and beatings of suspects by police have been common. It is usually an abuse of power that portrays an officer’s inability of having a good sense of right and wrong. Good characters in lawyers and advocates call for sufficient support to people, regardless of their race, gender or region. Conflicting interests of a jury and the parties in a case hearing should not be determinants of the judgment; instead, the rules of the law in the constitution should take precedence over anything else. The characters of these professionals should enable them show a duty of care to the public members, demonstrating honor to the constitution and the rule of law, to offer equal protection and treatment of all. Works Cited  Ombudsman Western Australia. “Guidelines: Exercise of discretion in administrative decision making.” ombudsman.wa.gov.au. Oct, 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. Pollock, J. M. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. 7th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. “The Interaction between Ethics and Criminal Justice System: The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice.” Sagepub.com. N.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. Read More