Introduction
Without any set moral guidelines and stipulations, a country’s criminal justice system is not capable of accurately meeting the needs of its people. The role of the system is to penalize poor conduct and make sure that victims of crime are well compensated for any of their losses (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2017; Souryal & Whitehead, 2019). Ethics are valuable in such systems because they offer both the victim and the accused fair justice application (Kramer, 2018). In this essay, the significance of ethics within the criminal justice system is discussed. Also, instances of unethical behavior, as well as the legal responsibilities suffered by the doers of such action, are presented.
Importance of ethics within the criminal justice
Ethics offers answers to several questions within the system. What is considered bad behavior or conduct? What is the most suitable compensation for victims of crime, and what is the befitting punishment for lawbreakers? These are few of the complex questions that the criminal justice system attempts to answer as it slowly but gradually evolves to match the changing needs of society. This evolution is guided by ethics, which is simply the moral guidelines by which communities live by (Braswell et al., 2017). Based on this context, ethics and justice cannot be distinctively separated within the system because it is through ethics that the lawbreaker will accept the kind of punishment passed to them, and the victim will consider the criminal justice system to have served its purpose.
Ethics within the justice system is essential to the system’s effectiveness in benefitting society. When the citizens feel that their government is acting in its peoples’ best interest, they will strive to become better citizens. On the contrary, citizens who know that their government, together with its representatives, like judges and the police, cannot indeed be trust to act in the best interest of its people will less likely cooperate during criminal investigations or even report a crime (Souryal & Whitehead, 2019).
The code of ethics forbids police officers from threatening crime suspects or even applying physical force to obtain information regarding alleged crimes. Police officers must inform those they arrest of their Miranda rights: their right t stay silent during their dealings with officers as well as their right to be represented by a lawyer. Informing the arrested individuals of their civil...
Lawyers are expected to stick to the guidelines of professional behavior in all criminal cases; the jury should fairly take into consideration all of the provided facts to establish if the defendant of innocent or guilty, and following the verdict of the jury, the judge should come up with a just ruling that’s based on the applicable laws, presented facts, and circumstances that surround the case at hand (Kramer, 2018; Souryal & Whitehead, 2019).
What may happen when ethics are not observed?
Order cannot be maintained in a society if ethics are not observed. Different people and cultures have different behaviors, and this is exactly why society members should agree...…his child support case. At the same time, another one had their case entirely dismissed (Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission vs. Dan E. F. Daniels, 2015).
2.1. What happened and the liabilities the lawyer suffered
The trial officer discovered the following facts: (1) The respondent had faced prior punishment for such misconduct; (2) the respondent’s negligence was inspired by selfish interest; (3) the respondent has a habit of neglecting her client’s cases; (4) the respondent was not cooperating with officers during the investigation; and (5) the respondent refused to accept their misconduct (Indiana Supreme Court v DANIELS, 2015). The trial officer did not find any facts in mitigation.
Violations: The court found that the respondent breached the Indiana Conduct Rules that prohibit the following transgression: 1.3: Not acting reasonable promptness and diligence. 1.4(a)(3) Not keeping the client informed about their case. 1.4. (a)(4) Not promptly complying with a client’s request about information regarding their case. 1.4(b): Not explaining an issue to the extent that allows a client to make informed choices. 1.16(d): Not taking the necessary steps to protect the interests of a client upon case dismissal (Indiana Supreme Court v DANIELS, 2015).
Discipline: The court suspended the respondent from practicing the law for a minimum of a year (Indiana Supreme Court v DANIELS, 2015). The respondent will not be involved in any legal matters and concerns between the service of this particular order and the effective suspension date. She will also fulfill all the set duties of a suspended lawyer under the Admission and Discipline Rule 23(6).…
