Criminal Justice - Assignment Example

Ethics and Justice in Criminal Law College Ethical Issues in Plea Bargaining Plea bargaining refers to that charges have been placed on Shantel for being in possession of drugs, something that is not true. It is socially unethical of the courts to mete charges on Shantel who has reformed from the use of drugs. However, it is equally hard to establish her innocence given that she has a criminal record of being in possession of drugs and using them. She is also on record for her children who were taken by the system when she was a drug addict. This case also presents an ethical dilemma to Shantel herself; she has to choose between bargaining a plea and keeping her child or forfeiting the plea bargain and losing her child to the system. Shantel should ethically not plead guilty to a crime she did not commit (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). This is however difficult given her past records of criminal offenses. In addition, her evidence may not be considered strong enough given she was staying together with a boyfriend who was a drug addict. Shantel is not the only one with such scenarios; fact bargaining, sentence bargaining and charge bargaining are also commonly used. For example, an individual who has been unrightfully charged for first degree murder may plead that the case be reduced to a man slaughter against the backdrop of the reigning laws and rules. Plea bargaining has been challenged for its using the game theory to analyze and decide on a plea bargaining process (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). In addition, crime victims do not have the ability to influence plea agreements. Defense Attorneys and the Ethics of Death Row Volunteering This presents both legal and ethical dilemmas in that I, as the defense attorney, am charged with protecting the client’s interests and negotiating between my own personal values and the client’s wishes as pertains to the execution. This hence needs a balance between my personal values and professional standing. Given I have Smith’s best interests at heart; I will not let him go to death. This is because of the strain that comes on my side as an individual after representing Smith in a law suit; his death amounts in essence to failure on my side. I would hence create a rapport with smith a fresh, convincing him of my professional prowess and the chances that with another pursuit we can win the case. This in mentioning would mean revisiting past cases that turned out well. If Smith accepts another appeal, I could raise an appeal on the intensity of the punishment that has been raised against Smith and review the past evidences at length. Capital punishment is a great human rights violation since everyone has a right to life. Secondly, retribution results in massive killings of each other since it applies the eye for eye rule and lastly the proportionality of capital punishment has raised legal issues. In most cases, the punishment is not proportional to the offense that has been committed and hence needs a thorough evaluation of the intensity of the wrong that has been committed. I would hence appeal that if Smith be given a sentence, then it should be proportional to the offense that Smith has committed. Justice for All Justice ought to apply to all American citizens irrespective of age, social status and race. Marriott is already under probation for misbehavior and has a curfew of 11p.m. She has not finished the period yet has been found with another mistake which is even grosser; drunken driving past the curfews on the probation order. As the appellate judge, on the basis of the law, Marriott should serve her jail term. The final decision on Marriott’s case lies with the courts and not with the sheriffs. It is hence unlawful for the Sherriff to lift charges that have been placed on a citizen unless she/he challenges the verdict through a lawyer. Marriott’s due process rights have not been infringed into, because the law is clear on actions that are taken against individuals who deliberately break the law even after being served with a probation order. Siegel & Worrall argue that her actions are considered deliberate because it happens before the probation order period had elapsed (2011). Just like would have been the case with any woman law breaker, Marriott will receive no relief from the courts. The law is not a respector of financial and social status (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). It applies to the poor and the rich alike. Marriott hence faces charges of misconduct and drunken driving as well as disobedience to state laws and hence deserves to serve her forty five days jail term without fail. Her social status does not warrant law breaking. This is in a bid to promote fairness and justice to all. Pros and cons of supermax prisons and mandatory sentences for criminals Although prisons may be used as correctional facilities, they are not effective in accomplishing their purposes when they are applied on mandatory basis. Siegel & Worrall confer that prisons are essential correctional facilities, but not the best for individuals whose punishment is as a result of the use of drugs (2011). Mandatory sentences on drug users are also not advisable. This is because it is not in every case that an individual chooses to use drugs. In addition, the use of mandatory sentences might override the main reason why the prison was built in the first place; as a correctional facility. Caution should hence be taken to ensure that there is a balance between the use of mandatory sentence and the supermax prison. The excessive use of mandatory sentence results in immunity to the law, where in essence offenders are not sorry for their wrongdoing because they feel that actions against the law do not result in pardon (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). Though the plan may be good in correcting law offenders, consideration should be made on the offenses that land individuals in prison in the first place. Consideration should be made to punish individuals based o the extent of the offenses committed and not a uniform decision on all drug users since differing offenses require different intensities of punishment (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). Non violent drug offenders cannot hence be put together with the violent ones to evade bullying from the violent ones. High security prisons should be a preserve of the high minded violent offenders and instead of supermax prisons, the legislator should consider introducing behavior reform programs in the prisons to facilitate personal change of the inmates. No Frills Policy In the past few years, state legislatures have lifted and eliminated the availability of some amenities and privileges from inmates. These have ranged from weight lifting equipment, personal clothing, meals, watching television and the use of pornographic materials, both electronic and print. It also includes exclusion of smoking, chain gangs, and boot camps. When used in this manner, it bears the fruits that it was intended to, correct and reform prisoners. No frills policy cannot however be used based on the argument that the can convince inmates to never repeat the criminal acts that landed them in prison. Siegel & Worrall argue that this is because the treatment of prisons as a place of confinement alone is first against human rights (2011). Humans in this generation have the right o access information. In the current wake of information technology, it would be inhuman to deny access to the important resource. Secondly, confinement results in emotional stresses and psychological trauma and may hence not beat the fruit that was desired for it. Emotional stresses that accumulate over a long period of time have resulted in the mental; breakdown of parties concerned. Counseling alone is not enough to keep prisoners mentally stable (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). Lastly, the prisoner will still need to handle society members in and out of prison. The best way to be socialized is through the media and not confinement. The use of media should hence not be entirely removed from the entertainment programs of prisoners, but should be limited to a level deemed fit for the consumption of the recipient. Transfer from Juvenile to Adult Justice System John has been predisposed to factors that have affected his mental stability. His actions are not instantaneous per se; they are in built thinking mechanisms that have been inculcated over time. Psychological analysis of John indicates that he is hostile and angered towards women and is also in deep frustration. This is a sign of pent up anger that have built with time, giving room for behavior that is not expected of boys his age. Under normal circumstances, John would be waived to an adult justice system because of his lack of remorse for his actions. He may also be waived to an adult system since this was not the first time he was facing the law as a result of his character. This is however not the best solution for John since it will result into prejudices, labeling and stigma from age mates who may not want to associate with a criminal. It is better to start a rehabilitation program for John. His lack of remorse is in my view due to the impact of past life on personality. Being an average intelligence level child, taking him to the adult justice system may result in malformed personality and a worse individual. John should hence be kept in a juvenile justice system with increased counseling and monitoring to see how much behavior change can be achieved. I would hence consider John as a juvenile and give psychological therapy in collaboration with other professionals to ensure a change of character. The Ethics of Using Tracking Devices Surveillance by use of electronic devices such as those installed cameras has gained widespread use in the recent past. The government through the police has not been left out. Its use has the advantage of revealing what individuals whether intently or without intent do against the law (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). In addition, it has been used to promote individual responsibility for actions and work. Employees have become more responsible in efficient use of working hours and proper use of office provided technology. However, its use presents ethical concerns. What is deemed personal is made accessible to the government (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). In addition, the tracking system makes the people live in constant fear and loss trust in the government in which the individual live. This has resulted in the disadvantages of using tracking devices overriding the advantages. I approve the partial use of the devices i.e. on highways and entertainment areas. This is because the government can only know the bad people and separate from the good ones by carrying out group surveys. I however oppose its entire use to survey emails and personal information on the internet. This is because I feel it is an infringement of personal information rights and these have been used by cunning terrorist groups to frustrate innocent citizens. Its use should answer such questions as; what impacts does it have on the human rights of the people? What is the main purpose for its use and is it attaining the purpose? What are the ethics of its use and what are the short and long term implications of its use? Ethical Dilemmas in Handling Detainees The Chinese nationals are neither enemy combatant nor are they in possession of fire arms. However, they have trained on the use of fire arms. This presents a legal ethical dilemma since protocol 1 to Geneva Conventions has made a provision that anyone who has taken part in hostilities and is not entitled to being a prisoner of war status and does not benefit from treatment deemed more favorable based on the Fourth Convention has a right to the protection. The detainees in this sense should be released within the minimum time possible. The challenge is their country gave them back to Afghanistan (Siegel & Worrall, 2011). Given the complicated nature of this case, the United States in a bid to fight terrorism should deport the Chinese nationals to their country. It is ethical of the state to deport them back to China because much as they are not a threat i.e. not enemy combatants, they pose a threat when conditions become conducive for them. They should not be released to the United States and if they cannot be released to China, the United States or a third party state, they should be detained for six months as interrogations are carried out on the detainees. The Supreme Court has not offered guidelines on how the detainees might be treated where it is impossible to release them to China; it only gives human rights considerations on the same. However, the United States government cannot be forced into releasing the men into the United States. Reference Siegel, L. & Worrall, J. L. (2011). Introduction to criminal justice. Wadsworth Pub. Company. Read More