Jerry Kang’s Ted Talk and his article “Implicit Bias in the Courtroom” link implicit and explicit bias to attitudes and behaviors. Implicit bias was the primary focus for both, and in his study he was able to measure implicit bases and how if effects behavior by using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). He argues that implicit bias seems to predict to some degree our attitudes and behavior towards other people. In his article, he explains two situation, criminal and civil employment, cases within a courtroom where bias leading up to sentencing, plea deals, hiring, and verdict are all impacted by the implicit bias of the judge and the jury. To begin his argument he demonstrates how police encounters, charging and plea deals, trials, and sentencing are all affected by implicit bias.
Throughout the history of the United States there have been numerous court cases that have drawn an incredible amount of public attention. Whether this was because the person involved was a known figure, or the offense that's being charged upon the defendant and/or the conviction that the case resulted in. It seems as if the United States just has an abundant of cases to choose from when choosing to analyze a case and that can possibly be based on the justice system used in the states to proceed a crime in court. One of those controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Lizzy Borden case. This case showed how to escape from the hands of the justice system.
“If a Law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so”- Thomas Jefferson. Law is a system of the principles and regulations that are established in society that govern people’s behavior. Generally, law consists of two main legal systems; common law or criminal law. Civil law controls and determines disputes of individuals and corporations with their private rights and liabilities. On the other hand, Criminal law includes prosecution of criminal offenses and the punishment of crimes.
A defense lawyer who has a heavy workload may persuade the criminal defendant to take the plea, which gives up an important constitutional right, a right to trial, in order to close many cases that he or she may be currently handling as swiftly as possible. Plea bargaining can also stir up ethical issues since criminal defendants can get off too easily with deductions in sentencing. Once a bargain for a reduced sentence is given, the victim may not be too fond of this adjustment from the original charge. The victim and their family could feel as if the justice system failed them, especially if the criminal defendant did not receive the punishment that they truly
The concept is one of which authority is divided between our national government and the state governments in order to govern a large area sufficiently. While it can complicate the administration of justice, I think it is key to managing the United States as a whole. It becomes complicated in situations such as Obergefell vs Hodges, where the Surpreme Court makes a decision that applies to every
Should the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused? These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning victim rights. This is an important debate for people accused of a crime since an unbalanced justice system may lead to a false conviction. The two positions argue whether or not victim rights outweigh criminal rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that a victim's rights should have priority over the rights an accused criminal.
The Defense Attorneys usually represent defendants in and out of court to avoid going to trial. Defense Attorneys are also viewed as Public Defenders. The Defense Attorneys handles criminal cases such as: sex crimes, domestic violence crimes, drug crimes, theft, fraud, embezzlement and driving under the influence (dui). Hired privately and make sure the defendant rights are upheld. The Public Defender that is appointed to represent the claimant, works for a private entity appointed by the Government.
A prosecutor plays an important role in the courtroom. A prosecutor is a lawyer that represents criminals who has violated a criminal law and people against a person. A prosecutor 's role is to also represent the state or federal government. The prosecutor has more control in their role in the courtroom from the first appearance of the accuser up until the accuser get acquitted or sentenced. The criminal justice rely solely on the prosecutor 's to have the power and authority to negotiate a plea bargain deal with defendants.
The right to counsel in court proceedings means the person has the right to be represented by an attorney during the trial or adjudication hearing.The right to a miranda warning also takes place in both the juvenile and adult systems. The miranda warning also known as the miranda rights is the right to silence said by a police officer to the person being taken into
Such tasks include establishing attorney-client relationship, discussing/setting fees, and signing initial case evaluation letters. Rule 5.3(b) states that a supervising attorney having direct supervision over a paralegal must make judicious efforts to assure that the paralegal’s conduct is in compliance and compatible with the professional responsibilities of the lawyer (ABA, 2016). Paragraph (c) of Rule 5.3 clarifies that the lawyer is accountable for the conduct of a paralegal who violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct by Peter Paralegal and his supervising attorney is considered misconduct and a violation of Rule 8.4 which prohibits lawyers from knowingly aiding or making another to violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional
The Judiciary- Judges have an important role within the court system, because they are legal experts of the law if the prosecution and defence are in dispute. The judiciary mange and oversee the conduct of trails and they sum up them up for the jury in a criminal case. They also pronounce sentence if a defendant is found guilty. In order
According to Christie, parties become uneasy with handling their own social conflicts where they know there are professionals present who they believe can do a better job. Lawyers also decide what is relevant in court, rather than letting parties decide what they believe to be relevant. Because of this, victims lose participation in their own case. Christie also discusses the types of segmentation and their effects on modern law. I agree with Christie’s views of modern law in regards to reduced participation of parties, the presence of too many specialists, and his view on segmentation.
You mentioned in your post that whether the defendant is guilty or not, if they are violated by an officer then the violation needs to be put to light. What are some consequences for the defense attorney if he is caught not bringing evidence (that could alter a trial) to court? What are the defendants’ rights that are being violated by the officer? One of duties that is to be performed by a defense attorney according to America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System is to, “zealously represent the client’s interests within the bounds of the law.” If the defense attorney fails to recognize the violation of his defendants’ rights does that corrupt the duty that is supposed to be performed? Proverbs 19:1 says, “Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.” When attorneys distorts evidence in any way, it gives the court system a bad reputation with its relationship to the
The role of the jury in capital cases Capital cases that include the death penalty are carefully analyzed and structured to allow the fairest due process. The selection of the jurors is one of the most crucial parts of the case. Attorneys and judges have to come to an agreement on who will serve on the jury before the case goes to trial. There have been many cases that have argued the selection of the jurors, for example, Uttecht v. Brown, Lockhart v. McCree, and many others. These cases have faced controversy due to the selection of jurors and have set precedents for new and present cases.