The Biased Trials and Unethical Behavior in the Justice System
The idea that many individuals may experience biased trials based on the fairness and equality ideals is at the core of a justice system. A study claims that justice is impartial, blind, and devoid of any bias based on a person's race, social status, or gender. (Kleinig, 2008). A judgment made unfairly and in favor of or against one object or person in comparison to another is referred to as bias. In performing their responsibilities, prosecutors and courts frequently act unethically. The prosecutors, as well as the judges in the courts, offer considerable discretion in determining the cases that should proceed to the trial or be dismissed. Theoretically, judges and the prosecutors must not only aim at conviction but also seek justice at all times for the public. However, in most instances, they are persuaded by their ambitions and not the truth.<\/p>
Prosecutors Using Their Jobs for Personal Gain
A number of the prosecutors use their jobs as the stepping stones to becoming rich (Kleinig, 2008) and such lucrative opportunities might compromise their decisions and services for the public. Additionally, they are involved in the plea bargaining process with a compromised presumption of innocence and in the same vein, the defendants accept to be guilty to be granted lesser charges or friendly judgment. Besides, another ethical behavior arises when a victim refuses to bargain and give some offers and the result is that the prosecutor retaliates by suggesting an unfavorable sentence. Honestly, such acts are not only being unethical but also unjust and only serve to humiliate the people who want to be granted justice.<\/p>
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Jury Skewing and Withholding Information
According to Kleinig (2008), the prosecutors may take advantage of the process of plea bargaining to intentionally compromise the process of trial and this often occurs through a jury skewing practice. Kleinig (2008) argues that jury skewing takes place when prosecutors seek adjudicators who are either partial or entirely biased in their courtesy. Even though some scholars have considered this as unethical, it is all the same perfectly legal (Terris, 2016), and perhaps when the prosecutor decides to prosecute persons discriminately on race, gender and ethnicity basis.<\/p>
In addition to prosecutors getting involved in the jury skewing, they have often displayed unethical behavior through withholding the essential information that affects the outcome of the criminal cases in favor of culprits (Kleinig, 2008). For instance, in a case between Brady v. Maryland in the year 1863, the Supreme Court of United States (U.S) held that suppression of the useful information for determination of the outcome of a criminal proceeding leads to a due process violation (Bass, 1974). Furthermore, the prosecutors can also use the dubious expertise due to the relationship that the government has with the forensic laboratories.<\/p>
Unethical Behavior of Judges and Disregard for Impartiality
According to Kleinig (2008), the prosecutors also face other prosecutorial misconducts like coaching the witnesses to give false witnesses against the accused and at the same showing resistance to further court appeals because they fear that such acts may dispose of their incapacity to deliver. Many prosecutors have often shown abnormal reactions such as overstatements in the opening as well as closing remarks during courts sessions. The unethical prosecutions are characterized by the utilitarianism and the egoism. In utilitarianism, the best or the wrong actions are determined based on the consequences of such actions and they are never justified in any ethical system. Also, some of the prosecutors may rely on the pieces of evidence obtained from the police without any want and this is unethical. According to the exclusionary rule, no evidence obtained without a court order can be used for prosecution and do so is immoral. Overall, it is prudent and ethical that the prosecutors remain professional in their duty.<\/p>
In the same way, prosecutors are unethical in their legal undertakings; judges are equally not exempted from the inappropriate behaviors\u2019 engagement. Judges have the ethical responsibility of being impartial and for this, the independence of the judicial system and its integrity are essential. The independence of the judiciary is free from the external interferences that perhaps may prejudice their judgments (Kleinig, 2008). A judge must avoid any impropriety activity in all her or his actions as stipulated in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Moreover, a judge should not be a member of any organization which openly shows discrimination by religion, nationality, gender and race.<\/p>
The Ethical Duties of Judges: Impartiality and Accountability
The accountability of the judges is also an unethical action which holds the judges answerable to their actions. Subsequently, the judges are free to disqualify their participation from the cases that might be impartial. For instance, if a judge has a financial interest in a case then this can make him or her to withdraw from hearing the case.<\/p>
There are two rare instances where the judges are required to make their decision. These instances include during interpretation of as law and sentencing of the offenders (Elsig and Pollack, 2014). Before the introduction of the judgment guidelines, there existed disparities due to the difference in the personalities of the individual judges. In whatever the situation, judges should at all times be just, impartial and fair and above all uphold neutral position.<\/p>
Conclusion
In conclusion, prosecutors, as well as the judges, may behave unethically during their duties. Like any other people who work in the judicial system or other related constitutional institutions, these people have the potential of acting irresponsibly, unethically and unprofessionally. Finally, prosecution and the judgment delivery needs independent mind and with detachment and the balance of justice.<\/p>
References
Bass, V. (1974). Brady v. Maryland and the Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose. Crim. Just. Sys. Rev., 2, 545.
Elsig, M., & Pollack, M. A. (2014). Agents, trustees, and international courts: The politics of judicial appointment at the World Trade Organization. European Journal of International Relations, 20(2), 391-415.
Kleinig, J. (2008). Ethics and criminal justice: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Terris, C. K. (2016). Jury Bias: Myth and Reality.
