The Use of Assembly Line Justice - Coursework Example

Defendants' and appellants' rights to trial are denied; most cases end with a plea bargain, usually of guilty simply because the court considers the cases routine (Neubauer and Fradella 123). Additionally, this concept of assembly line justice has shifted the focus of courts from the traditional due process procedures, whereby, the courts’ actors, specifically defense attorneys, and prosecutors, were required to prove their cases beyond any reasonable doubt before any resolutions can be achieved or reached to courts trying to reach resolutions without any adjudication (Neubauer and Fradella 124). Therefore, using the assembly line justice concept on the mere argument that it helps deal with the issue of excessive caseloads is neither here nor there, since it overlooks other fundamental aspects of the court system including the rule of law, local legal systems, and the relationship with the organization. Therefore, the use of assembly line justice is not just and should not be used.

Q #2: The Supreme Court has decided that prosecutors (Chapter 6) are to be immune from civil lawsuits arising from them acting in their official capacity. Without this type of legal protection, it was feared prosecutors would hesitate to do their jobs because they would be scared of being harassed by future civil lawsuits. Critics believe this blanket protection will encourage the violation of the defendant's rights. Do you support or oppose this immunity?

According to Neubauer and Fradella (139), prosecutors are expected to prosecute with vigor and earnestness and strike hard blows, but he/she is not allowed to present false evidence or strike hard foul blows. They are required to refrain from using methods that are improper and calculated to get a conviction at all costs, even if they are wrongful, Berger v. United States 1935, 88. In my opinion, the decision by the highest tribunal to grant prosecutors absolute immunity from civil lawsuits is proper, and, therefore, I support it. This is because prosecutors are very important players or actors in the criminal justice system as argued by Justice Robert Jackson, “…they have more control over liberty, reputation, and life…”, their duties bridge all the duties of other actors in the criminal justice system (Neubauer and Fradella 138).
For them to perform their duties well-earnestly and vigorously prosecute-, it is important for them not to be in fear of any civil suits. This immunity does not imply that prosecutors are at liberty to use unfair, unjust, unlawful means to push through a conviction or violate the rights of the defendants; it is meant to ensure that they do not hesitate in doing their jobs because of fear of harassment by future civil lawsuits. It is worth noting that, there are certain circumstances in which prosecutors may be sued civilly, and some of the court decisions are overturned if prosecutorial misconduct is determined. Therefore, the fear that this immunity will encourage the violation of the law and defendants’ rights is unfounded and incorrect. Read More