The media often portrays a negative image of lawyers and judges. The way that lawyers and judges act in media can be described as selfish justice. The meaning of selfish justice refers to the lack of concern that lawyers and judges can have regarding the fairness of a trial and the consequences that a ruling can have on another human life. To clarify, in most crime television shows and even in reality, an innocent person can easily be found guilty in court if the district attorney has enough evidence to prove the defendant crime and if the defense lawyer is not able to counter the evidence. However, many district attorneys as represented on television do not exhibit honesty when it comes to presenting evidence. For example, many episodes showcase …show more content…
district attorneys put false witnesses in the stand to testify against the defendant. Their goal is to manipulate the jury to make them believe that there is enough evidence to procure a guilty verdict. Personal injury and medical malpractice cases are other similar situations. The majority of personal injury and medical malpractice cases get thrown out due to the lack of evidence to compensate the plaintiff (the litigating party) for damages. Thus, we can describe these situations as selfish justice. Lawyer, clients, witness, and judges are considered as selfish justice because the way in which they rule and deal with the lives of others demonstrates lack of consideration for human life and justice in the courtroom. Several experts that study and practice the law may believe that the term selfish justice refers to the lack of concern from lawyers on whether or not they win or lose a case, as long as they receive compensation for their time. However it might be more accurate to use this term for cases where people who perform the case on trial like lawyers, clients, witness, and judges don’t want to reveal the truth for others. Selfish justice can be determined in four ways. Selfish justice first occurs when the judge makes a mistake on allowing irrelevant evidence or overrule on objection. Second, lawyers may put a false witness on the stand or when they are not prepared to perform the case on trial. Next, witnesses that testify on the stand may lie and have no consideration for those that face the law. And finally, clients may not consider or appreciate the efforts that their lawyer puts to help win their case. These examples are all considered selfish justice because the parties that are involved in a trial tend to make decisions based on personal interests. In television shows, judges are portrayed as often making wrong decisions.
Most judges ignore and misunderstand the law or the rules of the courtroom. In these show, judges tend also allow irrelevant evidence even when they know it’s not right. For example, in the TV show “How To Get Away With Murder”, Annalise Keating, the law professor and defense lawyer of the case, obtains an illegal document to disprove the witness testimony in the first episode. However, the prosecution lawyer was not familiar with the document. When he could not find the document in the case file, he objected as the document was not part of the “discovery file.” Thus, it was illegally obtained evidence. Ms. Keating then explains to the judge that she obtained the document from the attorney who had been previously representing her client. The judge seemed to agree with Ms. Keating’s argument, even after the prosecution lawyer claimed that Ms. Keating obtained the document illegally. Although the document was obtained illegal, the judge still allowed the document to be treated as evidence. This relates to selfish justice because the judge has chosen to bypass an important rule of the justice system. The article of “How to Tell a Judge He Screwed Up” by Robert Gettleman features a judge who talks about his experiences in the U.S. District Court in Chicago Illinois, and how judges often make mistakes when they preside over a trial. While the judge in “How to Get Away with Murder” does not admit to making …show more content…
a mistake or breaking a rule, Gettleman mentions the unwillingness of most judges in admitting their mistakes and misunderstanding the law. According to Gettleman, in his experience as a judge, most judges make errors in their ruling decisions “because we simply forget or misinterpret” the law. Because of judges being prone to error, they “have to be educated” (Gettleman, 49). Basically, Gettleman argument is that judges should be continually reeducated on the law in order to avoid making the wrong decisions. Lawyers are frequently portrayed in the media as people who have a lack of regard for justice. The media portrays many defense lawyers who have resorted to unruly tactics, such as putting a false witness on the stand to testify against their opponent. In the TV show “The Defenders” in the episode of “Noland v. Galloway Pharmaceuticals”, Nick Morelli and Pete Kaczmarek represent their client Luke who was overdose of epinephrine injections by paramedics. Morelli and Kaczmarek are suing Galloway Pharmaceuticals because they believe that the way the company labels their products confuses paramedics who choose the wrong bottle of epinephrine to apply it to the patient when they suffer from allergies. Morelli and Kaczmarek decided to go to trial because it would help their client get compensation for the damages. At the trial the defense lawyer who represents Galloway Pharmaceuticals decided to put a doctor on the stand. It was Morelli’s turn to cross-examine the doctor. Morelli stars with, approaching the doctor with two bottles of epinephrine. He then asks the doctor if he is familiar with the bottles to which the doctor replies yes. Morelli and Kaczmarek decided to give a demonstration of how the epinephrine works. Kaczmarek is allergic to shrimp, but Morelli made him eat it. After Kaczmarek ate the shrimp he was running out of air as if he were drowning in the ocean. As Kaczmarek stated to turn red like tomato sauce the judge told the bailiff to call the paramedics. Nick tells the judge that there is no need for paramedics when they have a doctor testifying. Morelli again approaches the doctor with the two bottles. Morelli then asks the doctor to choose the right bottle that will allow Kaczmerek breath normal again. The doctor was frightened and pale because in essence, he had to choose a random bottle. As a result, the doctor chose the wrong bottle, which could have killed Kaczmarck. Then Morelli tells the judge and the jury that if the doctor who works for the company couldn’t choice the right bottle, then how can anyone else? Selfish justice thus concerns lawyers who put liars on the stand because they are not considering people who suffer for the damages. Many clients don’t consider the sacrifice that their lawyers make to help their case.
Most clients don’t want justice but instead they want their lawyers to settle their case so they can be compensated in a short amount of time. In the same episode of “The Defenders”,Morelli and Kaczmaric also represented Sonia, an Asian woman who had suffered from an overdose of Epinephrine. Morelli and Kaczmaric discovered a case that was similar to Sonia’s and thus, would be able to support her lawsuit. If Morelli and Kaczmaric won the case, then Sonia would not need to go to trial. Instead she would have received a compensation check for her damages. However, Sonia doesn’t agree with the lawyer’s decisions because she needs to pay her medical bills and personal expenses. Thus, she wanted her case to go to trial first. Because Sonia didn’t agree with her lawyer’s decision, she decided to hire another lawyer to represent her case. As a result, her new lawyer lost her case as there was not enough evidence to settle her case. In the article of “Getting What You Deserve” by Jim McElhaney, a Hostetler distinguished scholar in trial practice at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Cleveland, describes how lawyers are responsible for explaining to their clients that they need to be fair on their decisions. McElhaney states “one of the most difficult jobs of precession can be trying to convince your own client to be reasonable” determines how clients are not always fair in agreeing with
their lawyer’s decisions (McElhaney, 25). In other words, clients will not always agree with their lawyer’s decisions. This is important because not many clients can see the sacrifices their lawyer make to win their case. Therefore, clients are also an example of selfish justice because they are often more concerned with receiving compensation than actual justice. In conclusion, the way that pop culture portrays the course of justice in the courtroom can be succinctly described as selfish justice. This is due to the lack of respect and concern that lawyers, judges, and even clients have for morality versus personal gain. However, perhaps pop culture’s portrayal of selfish justice accurately portrays reality as well. Over the course of history, we have seen that judges, lawyers and clients tend to be more focused on personal gain in making their decisions. Thus, justice is selfish in both its pop culture portrayal and in reality. Parties involved in a courtroom case are not always concerned about doing the right thing, they are often more concerned about how each ruling will benefit them. The media portrays this concept in a more exaggerated manner but observers today can see selfish justice in our justice system in more subtle ways as well Bibliography "The Defenders/Noland v. Galloway Pharmaceuticals." TVMC. 25 Feb. 2011. Television. "How to Get Away With Murder/Pilot." TVMC. 25 Sept. 2014. Television. McElhaney, Jim. "Getting What You Deserve: Ask for Too Much, and the Jury May Decide That Nothing Is the Right Amount." American Bar Association 94.2 (2008): 24-25. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 1 Nov. 2015. Gentleman, Robert W. "How to Tell a Judge He Screwed Up." American Bar Association 32.4 (2006): 49-52. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
The job of a criminal lawyer is quite difficult. Whether on the defense or the prosecution, you must work diligently and swiftly in order to persuade the jury. Some lawyers play dirty and try to get their client off of the hook even though they are guilty without a doubt. Even though the evidence is all there, the prosecution sometimes just can’t get the one last piece of the puzzle to make the case stick and lock the criminal up. Such is the case Orenthal James Simpson.
With producing reality shows comes producing inaccuracies in portrayals in order to reach as many viewers and gain as high ratings as possible every week with each new episode. Every day life is boring, yet people tend to be attracted to the relatable shows that portray real life in eccentric ways – ways that they believe could be imitated by the average person. In many cases, these shows could remain harmless, as it is entertainment. No matter how crude or erroneous, it is just television. However, what happens when these sources of amusement actually start being damaging? Research has shown that crime shows like the ever popular CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have started becoming significantly detrimental to criminal cases, influencing a juror's perception of what should realistically be going on with acquittal rates and wrongful convictions, but researchers have also started to find a rising fault in the prosecution, using this false perception to their advantage.
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
It is more difficult for governments to provide adequate salaries to public defense lawyers and the result is that these lawyers are often more inexperienced (Fairfax, 2013). Since the amount of defendants who are unable to afford private counsel has increased, public defense lawyers are also overworked. It is not uncommon for public defense lawyers to juggle hundreds of cases simultaneously (Fairfax, 2013). In other words, the system is unable to handle the volume and has therefore resorted to avoiding the trial process whenever
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
One of the main factors in wrongful convictions, tunnel vision, has been recognized by psychologist as a human tendency to quickly convict a suspect so that society feels safe. Although tunnel vision is seen as a natural instinct it can convict innocent individuals and weaken the criminal justice system . Jerome Frank, a judge in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals explored the causes of wrongful convictions and noted that in 36 cases tunnel vision was a significant factor in the conviction of innocent individuals. As demonstrated, tunnel vision is a prevalent factor and may affect cases resulting in judges and juries convicting wrong suspects. However, the human tendency towards tunnel vision is a distinctive feature of an individuals psychological characteristics. Psychologist view tunnel vision as the product of cognitive biases. These natural biases explain why tunnel vision is common even amongst respected legal enforcers and honest justice systems. Although tunnel vision is a common natural tendency, it can be altered and lead to the conviction of innocent individuals.In situations when a high profile case is
Plea bargains are highly prevalent in the popular television series Law and Order. If a random episode is chosen, there is a high chance that lawyers in the show have offered a plea bargain. While many people would believe that media skews the public’s understanding of how often plea bargains occur, however, this is actually an appropriate representation. According to Heumann, approximately 10% of criminal cases actually continue on to trial (Heumann, 1975). Similarly, as stated by Menkel-Meadow, plea bargains are the reason why there may be congestion in the courts, but a low number of criminals are actually jailed (Menkel-Meadow, 2005).
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom.
In the criminal justice system psychologist play several roles, but in the jury selection process they serve as a consultant. This essay will provide three instances of psychological concepts and illustrate how they are applied to the determination of juries. The essay will also address a common ethical obligation confronting psychologist in the areas of corrections, law enforcement, court systems, and academia.
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
In conclusion, the popularity of the show Judge Judy can be linked to individual’s aspiration to see a real courtroom proceeding, because she is known for her blunt behavior and being one of toughest judges in New York City (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). She is very sarcastic and opinionated, which makes her very entertaining to watch on television. In my opinion, the way she conducts her cases by bringing justice and humor may influence individuals to want to see if this type of behavior is conducted during actual court proceedings. Although, shows such as Judge Judy, are entertaining they do not show how actually court proceeding are handle, which can be misleading to viewers. In actually court proceedings, the judge doesn’t not conduct themselves
There is no such thing as justice - in or out of court. Clarence Darrow i