In all nations, the constitution ought to be adhered to. Contrary to that, legal action is sought, whereby the law breaker is prosecuted and dealt with according to the law. It is in this instance that the prosecution team seeks discretion. This come handy with the acceptance or denial of guilty pleas by the offenders. However, in some instances, the defense team and the prosecution hold talks of negotiation on the seriousness of charges being pressed to the offender, as discussed in this document.
Criminal Justice Theory and Policy
Prosecution discretion and the constitution
The majority bring out the fact that the prosecutor is trying to abide by the laws that relate to plea-bargaining. If the prosecutor would, by any chance make threats to the accused, then the verdict by the majority would have been unfair to the accused. The defendant, therefore, would have had an unfair trial, which can make him charged unfairly. In my opinion, I agree with the decision by the majority in that they are considering the fact that the prosecutor has the responsibility of trying to convince the defendant to relinquish that he is not guilty. This would set the pace for a trial in which all the evidence against the defendant presented to the court. This sheds light to the case thereby ensuring that the whole story and scenario behind the case becomes apparent (McConville & Mirsky, 2009). The advantage to this, therefore, is that a fair conclusion of the case would present itself. The laws are in favor of the defendant in a case whereby the defendant pleads to a guilty plea and in consideration to this case scenario, the defendant pleads not guilty.
The prosecutor is rather being harsh to the defendant according to the opinion by the majority. The accused turns down the offer by the prosecutor, thereafter, the prosecutor goes ahead with placing charges that are worth to consider as harsh. This brings out a negative impression relating to the decision made by the prosecutor who seems to be a little bit hard to the defendant (McConville & Mirsky, 2009). This is not right when considering the law because the prosecutor should treat the defendant fairly. In the eyes of the law, the defendant is still innocent until found guilty of the charges against him. Alternatively, if the defendant had given in to the offer tabled by the prosecutor, then the charges against him would have been less harsh in comparison to the subjection of an obligatory life incarceration. If that is not the case, then the prosecutor might be up to making his work much simpler by expecting the defendant to agree to the plea-bargaining offered. It is mandatory that the prosecutor let the defendant decide for him or herself whether to plead guilty or not. The prosecutor should not force the defendant to make irrational decisions so that he can simplify his work. This is a selfish act.
The prosecutor has the right of persuading the defendant to agree on the plea-bargaining, but it is unfair that the charges that the defendant gets after dilapidating have to be harsh. It is, however, the defendant's option to make a decision on whether to agree or repudiate the offer tabled by the prosecutor (McConville & Mirsky, 2009). Another reason that supports the opinion by the majority is the fact that the law defies punishment of a person who contravenes what the law consents to like for this case where the prosecutor is obviously trying to present a "give-and-take" situation. A give a take scenario is one where the prosecutor expects the defendant to accept the plea-bargaining in order to lay less harsh punishment to the defendant.
To justify my decision, the court gives the prosecutor power to offer the plea-bargaining deal and try to ensure that the defendant agrees to the plea deal, but it does not allow the placing of harsh charges against the defendant. The prosecutor has to be considerate when making the decision in terms of charges not to be too harsh to the defendant. The court of law disagrees on having punishment to a defendant who declines a plea deal with the prosecutor. The defendant has the freedom to agree or decline the plea-bargaining because it is his right. This is a constitutional right of the defendant. The prosecutor should not at any time force a defendant to agree to his terms.
Factors for policy considerations
Prosecutors evaluate a number of factors in determining what decision to come up with during a pre-trial process. These factors enable the prosecutor makes a valid and justified decision for a case. Prosecutors consider several factors. For effective prosecution to take place there should be the required selected readings, methodology and analysis of the findings of the case (Siegel 2012). A standard case set is also crucial since it is a tool used for decision making in the criminal justice system. These tools enable us to understand how prosecutors view a case and how they come up with justified decisions.
The standard case set measures the level of agreement between prosecutors. Some of the well-known factors that contribute to the decision-making process of prosecutors categorized into two main types. These are legal and extra-legal. According to Siegel (2012), legal factors include the strength of evidence, culpability of the defendant and the seriousness of the offence. If the evidence against the defendant is strong, it is likely that the court will charge and convict the defendant for the offence. This also applies with the nature of the offence whereby a defendant punished severely if the offence committed was serious.
A serious offence that causes unspeakable damages be it emotional, physical or financial leads to a severe punishment. In extra-legal factors, prosecutors look into a number of things, which include the relevance of the offence towards the defendant (Siegel 2012). This mainly includes the victim's relationship with the defendant. Prosecutors also consider race, gender and ethnicity between the victim and defendant. The police must investigate the relationship between the victim and defendant. This leads to the court to understanding why the defendant may have committed the offence. If the court does not establish a relationship between the defendant and victim, then it will be a hard task for the court to establish why the defendant may have committed the offence.
The factors that are most impactful in the decision making process by prosecutors are the evidence gathered against the defendant. According to Siegel (2012), this is the most impactful factor and prosecutors make decisions according to this. This is because the more the evidence against the defendant is present, then it is likely that the defendant committed the lawful offence. The nature of the crime also makes an impact as this determines the punishment that the defendant will face if found guilty.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.