Although attorneys go through tough schooling and ethical prepping to be equipped to uphold the constitution, there are times when personal ethics can create a dilemma. This usually takes place when one person’s ethical standard clashes with a predetermined law or rule. An example of this is the issue of factual guilt vs. legal guilt. Factual guilt deals with whether or not an accused person has actually committed the crime they are accused of, and legal guilt deals with whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that the person did what they are accused of doing (Larsen 68). As a result of these types of guilt, many people who are factually guilty are not seen as legally guilty, and people who are not factually guilty are sometimes ruled …show more content…
An example of this is the case of “Brewer v. Williams,” which is also known as the “Christian Burial Case.” In this case, Robert Williams, an escaped mental patient, was accused of killing a 10-year old girl. In the defense’s efforts of proving him “legally guilty,” a police officer who knew that Mr. Williams was a religious, decided to ask Mr. Williams questions that would lead to him incriminating himself (Brewer v. Williams). He told Mr. Williams the importance for the family to bury their daughter on Christmas because she was taken away from them on Christmas Eve. Mr. Williams directed the police to where the girl was buried, while at the same time incriminating himself. When this evidence was brought to the courts, they convicted Mr. Williams of murder; however, the respondent petitioned the ruling on the grounds that Mr. Williams was not provided his constitutional right to assistance of counsel (Brewer v. Williams). Although Mr. Williams was proven to be factually guilty, the way the evidence was attained could not prove him to be legally guilty. The attorney, in this case, was in the position of representing a client who was proven to be factually guilty but continued to defend him. This case shows one of the possible ways lawyers handle the dilemma of attorney-client privilege and factual/legal
Carcasses attract scavengers. The Guilty Party by O. Henry showcases the untimely death of a girl of twelve, Liz. Above Chrystie Street on the east side, a strange bird stalks the children of the playground. Although people say it’s a stork, locals call it a vulture. In this case, Liz is the carcass that the vulture sets its eyes on.
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
Authors Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded the innocence project at a law school in New York City, which has assisted in the exoneration of an astonishing number of innocent individuals. As legal aid lawyers, they blithely engaged in conflicts that implicated
Communication between an attorney and its client is crucial during a trial. The attorney - client privilege is a legal privilege between the client the and the attorney assuring the privacy of the client. There have been many cases where the attorney and client privilege has become an issue and most people believe that an attorney should break his/her privilege when the client confesses of harming more than one victim. When it comes to an attorney and a client it is important for both parties to understand each other, and assure that each conversation such be between client and attorney only.
Reasonable suspicion constitutes a stop by police. According to our textbook, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is why is it important for police to justly stop a person (p. 17). The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained from improper police work, like an unwarranted stop, is not allowed in court.
Therefore, under these ethical standards, prosecutors cannot file charges if there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, they also do not file if it is not in the public interest to do so. This is what makes the possibilities limitless; however, three key factors also play a part in determining which cases to prosecute. If prosecutors follow these three factors in determining cases then the contradiction of limitless discretion and high ethical standards should be remedied for others. These are factors that should be followed are as followed: the seriousness and nature of the offense, the offender’s culpability, and the likelihood of being able to obtain a conviction at a trial. “Ethical conduct, then, must be the core of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal justice system” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Therefore, even though prosecutors have almost limitless discretion in their decisions, they still must
Guilt is powerful thing. A person’s whole life can be destroyed seconds after being exposed to the strength of guilt. Even though admitting a sin can seem more difficult than not, that confession can often make a world of difference in the long run. In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, Hester Prynne, and Reverend Dimmesdale, have two very different ways of dealing with guilt. These differences in action are what change the courses of their lives. The actions taken by one character are successful, though the actions of the other put his life in ruins. Hester confesses her sin in public, while Dimmesdale does not. This simple choice made causes a drastic change in each of their lives. When comparing the lives of Hester and Dimmesdale,
One of the main reasons for the increased number of negotiated pleas is the difficulty of taking all cases to trial. The emphasis of the ethical concerns that arise from plea bargaining is on Kantian ethics. In relation to Kantian ethics, the issue that arise is guilty pleas made by innocent individuals and the voluntariness of all defendants to make the decision to plead guilty. Abolishment of the plea bargain could eventually do more harm than good. However, effective counsel resulting from ethical training can lead to the decline of wrongful
When people fight, they usually do so under the premise that their enemy has done something wrong. Whether or not the fighters are under a false premise, both parties know why they are fighting and why their enemy is fighting back. They are partaking in reciprocated violence; both parties are accusing the other of committing wrong against them. However, not all cases of violence are reciprocal. Some are unilateral, in which a large majority group is attacking a smaller group or person. One example of unilateral violence would be the act of scapegoating, when a group puts a minority at fault for their own troubles or mistakes. The practice of scapegoating has Biblical origins but has likely been used in prehistoric societies and it still lives on today.
Garrett, Brandon. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2011. 86. Print.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Can you remember the last time someone lied to you? Or how about the last time you lied to someone else? Did you ever stop and ask yourself why? There are so many different reasons that a person might lie. Maybe a lie about something to keep oneself out of trouble, or even a lie to impress other people. But either way there are always going to be serious consequences or effects of lying.
I agree with the statement "honesty is the best policy". People will be able to trust people who are honest, liars will have rumors spread around about them, and it's just plain easier to tell the truth. Nobody likes people who lie all the time and won't know whether to trust them or not. People get annoyed by people who lie a lot.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
There are certain things in this world that should not be allowed no matter what