This can be detrimental in the sense that it gives certain high-ranking officials far too much power. Court cases are settled when a judge exercises their own discretion to punish someone who has broken the law. Because of this, many individuals are given an unfair sentence because judges and prosecutors let their implicit biases get in the way of their decision making. Even though this is not the case with all judges and prosecutors, one mistake by one individual could cause someone to receive a much harsher sentence than they deserve. Prosecutors like Aaron Negangard serve as a prime example of a decision-maker who allows their own personal stereotypes to influence their discretionary actions.
These are the general definitions of the thinking errors, which again are against the typical way of thinking, that is usually only unique to criminals, it is the way that they act, and thus justify their actions. Even though at times people that are not criminals may express these different thinking errors, yet is most often seen in criminals. Each of these different errors, express what a criminal does, whether it is because they are in their own personal bubble, or whether they feel like they are entitled to
Ginsberg and Green (1986) discuss why money possibly influences members of Congress, thus possibly affecting the outcome of certain principles. In addition to corruption affecting the poorest sections of society, the effect of corruption on politics is that it renders the state incapacitated and powerless. Corruption is damaging to the state’s ability to extract taxes, to implement coherent and rational development policies, to redistribute among groups and consequently to its ability to transform the society and the economy according to political priorities. The capacity of the state to extract taxes would be erode when individuals and groups are able to pay their way out, and certainly when public officials are embezzling revenues. When bureaucratic regulations are reorganized, manipulated and operate in a confusing manner, the methods are there to enable bureaucrats to easily collect bribes.
For people who work in criminal justice, the law may even conflict with a chosen moral system. This could be true if a person bases his or her beliefs on the moral teaches of a religion or other system. In a sense, the belief in a universal system of morals implies the application of a personal morality to the enforcement of the law. If the goal is to minimize the personal morality of the official, then a system of moral universalism would be deficient as an officer would be less capable of bringing his or her own personal morality in to official business. He or she would judge that the offender is immoral in some way and, therefore, make a personal judgment that is separate from the law.
(Keene) B. Whether from evidence or a personal hunch, some interrogators interview suspects as if they are guilty, which causes an incorrect interrogation that leads to extensive stress and pressure. C. But if the investigator approaches the interrogation believing the detainee is guilty, the ensuing interrogation is more pressure-filled and coercive. This results in the innocent detainee (who is likely to waive their rights) being at increased risk for false confession due to the pressure of the interrogation process. (Keene) D.
Procedural due process and Substantive due process may seem similar but they have vast differences. The overall purpose of due process is to extend justice and fairness to the individual in relationship to government. Procedural due process is an analysis of the procedure required by the constitution when states seek to deprive people of life, liberty or property. Procedural due process is made to protect individual citizens from the coercive power of the Government by ensuring the adjunction process under valid, impartial and fair laws. Procedural due process is a basic claim under the fourteenth amendment that there is an absence of fair process.
The criminal justice system is not blind to the wealthy, in fact it favors them. The second rule of the Pyrrhic defeat theory states, “Failure to treat as crimes the harmful acts of the rich and powerful” (179) Rich people also commit crimes, yet the perception of a criminal is usually perceived as both a minority and poor. Rich people also commit crime, but they receive more of a slap on the wrist and second chances than less privileged classes. People in power who happen to be rich have the authority and influence to create a narrative of the threat of poor people to the masses. The consequences of the narrative of the threat of the poor creates a broken system where there become two courts, one for people with money, and one for those without.
In other words, the legislation embodies public opinions, citizens are not only lawmakers but also the final judge of law. Therefore, rules of the law embody public interests and values, criminal justice and social justice do not have the clash in nature. Although the injustice of some individual cases is existent because of the limitation of law, it is essential to guarantee the holiness and authority of law. Otherwise, the improper and irrational acts of public opinions would intervene the judicial process, which may lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Fleck and Hanssen, 2012). It finally may give rise to that the achievement of justice is just words on a page.
The perpetual dilemma in partisan approach is the potentially apposing ethical obligations imposed upon a lawyer; those to the client and those to the general interest of society and the profession. Ethical obligations go beyond individual moral conflictions that a lawyer may feel. Ethics, by definition, is the moral ground that underpins professional interactions. The lawyer’s professional responsibility extends beyond their client to the broader interests of the law, society and justice. It is for this reason that a lawyer who solely adheres to the standard conception cannot always be said to be acting ethical.
To demonstrate how democracy reduces corruption, firstly the tool using to indicate the amount of corruption is needed. Corruption as the act of the abuse of power for self-interests or to obtain a personal benefit is hard to be precisely counted. The estimation of corruption cannot be done by simply counting the time of corrupt activities.
In Thomas M. Ross’s article, he states, “Juries are criticized for deciding on cases based on prejudice and emotion rather than relying on the evidence and the law.” Juries might have sympathy or hatred for one of the victims based on previous experiences that can be related to the circumstance. This type of discriminatory judgement can lead to unjust
In his view, if the judiciary is inconsistent with their theory of ruling of the majority, he claims the supremacy of Court will become “illegitimate” (1971). To add, he explains that enabling the minority freedom upon the constitution may overrule the majority and will undermine the power of the judiciary. I do not agree with Bork’s statement since it only concerns the power structure in the political sphere. The foundation of law should not be interpreted based on power but, solely on the Constitution and how it is translated through fair and fundamental values that should most importantly reflect an individual’s right and