Evidence That Defendant Is Guilty

851 Words4 Pages
1. The role of the criminal prosecutor is to prove that that defendant is truly guilty. It is there job to look at all the evidence that is available and use that evidence to show why it is true that that person committed the crime so that they are prosecuted the way that they need to be. The job of the criminal defense attorney is to look at all the evidence that the prosecutor is bringing forth and to show why that evidence is not reliable or does not have any proof that it is linked to the person being accused of the crimes. It is their job to try to keep the accused person from being sentenced. The judicial officer is the person wills all the power to decide what happens to the person being accused. They are the ones that the information…show more content…
I think that the court systems should have a little more power when it comes to choosing due process or criminal control. If the person is a first time offender and it is a small crime then I think they should have the right to defend themselves. On the other hand if the person is being prosecuted for the second or more time for the same type of offense or if it was an offense that is very bad then I feel that they need to be punished for the crimes that they have committed. I do believe that there should be balance because not all court cases need to be dealt with to the extreme of punishments but then there are some cases and individuals that never seem to learn so they need to be dealt with in a different way to deter them and others from committing those same…show more content…
I do not think that the plea bargain lets someone off easy. While they might receive a lesser change they also are having the fact that they admitted to doing something taken into consideration by the court system when they decide on the punishment. I feel that it equals out in the long run for those who end up taking the plea bargain. In small cases yes the person might get off with just probation, but is probation was something in condensation then the crime could not have been that detrimental. They would not offer something like probation to a deranged murderer if they confessed to killing someone. I do think they are necessary because like I said for those who only commit small crimes it is easier for them to go through probation or house arrest instead of throwing a potentially nonviolent offender into a jail where they can become a violent offender. I think economically it is a good idea as well as socially to have the plea bargain. If benefits the community and judicial system because it prevents overcrowding and changing a person into something worse than they were as well as makes the process go a lot faster so that the criminal can be dealt with so other things that need to be addressed can be addressed. I would not change the plea bargain; I think that it is a good idea in most case scenarios for those who have committed small crimes because those with big crimes are still going to be dealt with in a harsher
Open Document