Ethical Violations and Ethical Dilemma in the Film American Violet - Essay Example

Being black and poor are unique conditions that make many people vulnerable to social injustice. Regina Kelly, a black and single mother of four young children, was the chief plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the district attorney, John Paschall, the narcotics task force, the sheriff’s department, the county, and other individuals and agencies. Kelly’s original defense lawyer, David Higgins, tried to convince her to accept the plea bargain of 10 years of probation, without explaining other options to her. The suit, with the ACLU and with Sam Conroy as local civil lawyer, charged Paschall and others with false arrest, equal protection violations and a scheme to violate the plaintiffs’ civil rights. The film American Violet, directed by Disney (2008), and PBS Frontline’s The Plea depict this lawsuit, its proceedings, and outcomes. This essay discusses the prosecutorial misconduct, the ethical violations of the defense attorney, and the ethical dilemma that Regina Kelly faces. The misconduct and ethical violations are products of self-interest promotion, racial discrimination, and unethical conflicts of interests, while Kelly faced the conflict of pleading guilty and ensuring her release, but she would lose her civil rights and liberties, while not pleading guilty meant a potential lifelong harassment from Paschall, although she could potentially shake the system enough to stop the unfair raids against poor communities of black people and to expunge allegations of drug involvement for all concerned individuals. The prosecutor in Kelly’s case exhibited misconduct, because of his direct involvement in fraud. Paschall is aggressively pursuing the most number of convictions, because of related monetary incentives through the federally-funded drug intervention program. In American Violet, his main witness, Eddie Porter, accused Paschall of hiring the police to beat him up and to threaten him of 60 years in prison, if he would not testify against a number of people. Porter recorded audio tapes, where he alleged these people, from a list that Paschall made, as drug dealers and users. This means that Paschall is guilty of fraud, because he forced a witness to make up evidence, in order for him to get his quota convictions. This misconduct is illegal and unethical: “The prosecutor must seek justice, not merely a conviction” (Pollock, 2012, p.258). He should represent the public interest (Pollock, 2012, p.258), and yet by forcing a witness to charge others, he serves only his financial self-interest. Disciplinary rules forbid the prosecution from pursuing charges without probable cause (Pollock, 2012, p.258). Texas law states that a single informant can be enough to charge and imprison another person. Nevertheless, the rules are clear that there must be probable cause. In Kelly’s case, the probable cause is not enough, because the taped evidence does not even have any woman’s voice, and no one in the prosecutor’s or defendant’s team have a copy of it. Still, Paschall is bent on proving that the charge is true beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is that he does not have any evidence to back him up. In addition, Paschall does not give the accused the benefit of a reasonable doubt. In PBS Frontline’s The Plea, even when the charges are all dropped for all those who did not plead guilty, he told the press: “I believe every one of them was guilty. But I dont believe the state had enough evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is wrong to say, because he cannot say that they are guilty, when he did not even have enough evidence to convict them (Lippke, 2011, p.4). The prosecutor is also guilty of threatening witnesses and defendants. In American Violet, Paschall used his power to exert undue duress on Porter and Kelly (Pollock, 2012, p.258). First, he used the police to hurt and to threaten Porter, so that the latter would be forced to make allegations. Second, Paschall went directly to Kelly’s employer, which led to her employment termination. At the same time, all of a sudden, Kelly’s husband was able to get the Child Custody Services to question Kelly’s ability as a mother. After her husband also tried to get their children, he told her that Paschall would not arrest him for this. He indicated that Paschall will protect him, if it will force Kelly to drop her charges against him. It is evident that Paschall is pulling political strings to push Kelly to her limits and to force her to stop her lawsuit. The prosecutor is also accused of having racial intent in his allegations. In American Violet, Paschall’s ex-wife testified against him. She provided stories on how Paschall acted against black people. She said that “he hated them,” including their kids. If black kids went to their yard, he would yell at them. She said that Paschall also called black people as “niggers,” and he believed that removing them would improve their community. His daughter also testified against his racist attitudes and behaviors. She stressed, that, when she dated a black man, he came after her with a belt and called her a whore who loves niggers. Hence, it is not highly doubtful that Paschall’s racist prejudice also affected his behaviors and decisions as a District Attorney. Aside from these acts of prosecutorial misconduct, the defense attorney also conducted several ethical violations, specifically not serving the client’s interests. The defense lawyer should be responsible for the client’s interests. However, the film shows that Higgins is more partial to the District Attorney. When he and Paschall first spoke with Kelly, they acted like a tag team who harangued Kelly into accepting the plea bargain. Higgins insisted that Kelly takes the plea bargain, or else, she might get 16 to 25 years in prison, if Paschall prosecuted her to the fullest extent of the law. Instead of asking about the truth and investigating the validity of the charges, Higgins assumes that Kelly is guilty. This presumption of guilt breaks down the adversarial trial process. This process depends on each side presenting arguments based on facts, and not presenting a plea bargain that is unfair to the accused (Cole & Smith, 2008, p.203). Higgins also stressed that if Kelly will not plead guilty, she would have to wait for her pre-trial hearing that might take place after six months. This alone pressures Kelly to plead guilty, or else, she would not see her children for six months. Higgins is making it look like Kelly only has a plea bargain as her best option, although in her case, this is not the truth. In The Plea, Albert Alschuler, Professor of Law of University of Chicago stressed the injustice of plea bargains: “The guilty plea sort of puts a lid on the box, regardless of whats inside the box. Its a system thats designed to keep the truth from coming out. Plea bargaining has nothing to do with justice.” Alschuler explained that the plea serves the interest of prosecutors and defense lawyers more: “It has to do with convenience, expediency, making the life of prosecutors and defense attorneys easier and more profitable. Its designed to avoid finding out the truth. Its designed to avoid hearing the defendants story.” Another ethical violation of the prosecutor is conflict of interests. The way he acted toward Paschall and Kelly shows his loyalty to the former and not the latter. He lost the evidence against his client, which makes him culpable of gross dereliction of duties. In addition, since he is not helping Kelly win her case, he is also a party to the criminal obstruction of justice. Higgins is more concerned of “playing ball” with the prosecution, which negates his role of supporting the interests of his client (Pollock, 2012, p.251). Apparently, he serves Paschall more than his own client. Kelly faced a difficult ethical dilemma that makes her choose between her principles and motherly roles and responsibilities. If she chose to plead guilty, she was promised to get home immediately. She could be with her kids who needed her, because they were all young and their fathers were either in jail or incompetent parents. The plea bargain included ten-year probation and a small fine. What is not explained to her, however, is the cost of probation fees. In The Plea, Erma Faye Stewart did not know where she could get the payment for her probation and late payment fees worth $1,866. Kelly might be able to get home to her kids fast, but she would be indebted to the state through her probation fees. Also, if she had pled guilty, she would lose numerous civil rights and liberties. She would be booted out of her state-funded home. She would also lose her suffrage, food stamps, Medicare, and other welfare benefits. Her record would also make it almost impossible to find a decent job. For a single mother, she needed welfare support to make ends meet. Also, if she pled guilty, she would be seen as a felon. Her daughter already got into a scuffle, because some children called her mother a dope dealer. Kelly could not accept the idea of pleading guilty to a crime she never committed. She wanted to find out the truth and to have justice. She could not accept that she was jailed for 21 days for a crime she had not done. Moreover, Kelly pursued social justice. She wanted the DA and other guilty people to know that what they are doing to black people is also wrong. This might make her a target of Paschall’s fury for a very long time, but she would take it, if it would serve a larger purpose in her community. Kelly and many other poor and black people in this case are victims of racial discrimination. Paschall is racially prejudiced and this prejudice, as well as his financial concerns, showed him incompetent in making the right decisions as a DA. In addition, Kelly’s defense lawyer served Paschall’s purpose more than her. Higgins did not promote Kelly’s interests by forcing a plea bargain on her. Finally, this case shows the disadvantages of plea bargains. Plea bargains cannot effectively work in attaining justice, if the people accused are innocent and victims of racial prejudice. It can only lead to the breakdown of the adversarial trial process, because prosecutors and defense lawyers will collude to attain their interests alone. Kelly, thankfully, evaded the course of plea bargains. But many more others did not, so her case divulges the problems of the plea bargaining process, a process that maligns justice by breaking ethics and laws altogether. References Bikel, O. (2004). The Plea. [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/etc/script.html Cole, G.F., & Smith, C.E. (2008). Criminal justice in America (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Disney, T. (Director). (2008). American Violet. [Film]. Los Angeles, CA: Samuel Goldwyn Films. Lippke, R.L. (2011). The ethics of plea bargaining. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pollock, J.M. (2012). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Read More