Selected Issues in Dispute Resolution Advanced Decision Analysis Case Study on Naz Decision Case Brief: This case study is about analyzing a decision-making process that was found in The Night of TV show, episode 4 “ The Art of War”. Where Nasir “ Naz” Khan, the main character in the show is having a deal plea in a case where all evidence is against him. Here, Naz has to choose between taking the plea deal or rejecting it. By accepting the plea deal, Naz his sentence would be reduced to 15 years instead of a lifetime. Indeed, Naz would have to admit to a murder that he did not commit. Another outcome for pleading guilty is that his family, most probably, would not know for sure that he is not a murderer. On the other hand, by rejecting the plea deal, Naz would be taking risks of a lifetime sentence if the jury found him …show more content…
Naz made a series of poor and rushed decisions that led him to be convicted in a murder case in the first place. There are much evidence shows that Naz is the murderer. He has committed other crimes such as, stealing his father’s cab, taking drugs, taking a knife from a crime scene, not reporting the crime, and resisting arrest. Despite all the crimes he admitted, there is a necessity of finding other certain evidence that supports his claims. Another challenge to make the decision whether to take the plea deal or not is the influence of people around Naz. For illustration, his lawyer, Crowe, advised him to take the deal. Also, his previous lawyer, Stone, advised him as well to take the deal rather than depend on what the jury will decide. Also, one of Naz's follow inmates advised him to take the deal. All these advice could have influenced him to follow their opinion and ignore the truth. On the other hand, Chandra’s answer to Naz’s question was a challenge to take the deal because she said that if she did not kill the lady, she won’t take the
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
As we the jury were deliberating what would be the best punishment for the crime the defendant, we examined his record which the jury did not find anything to judge him by in a negative light. We have also heard testimony he has been involved in a conflict with a former inmate. We further learned it has not always been easy to make the defendant to comply with orders from the officials in the
Criminals can come in many different shapes and sizes. For example, a criminal can be classified as being a murderer or a criminal could just simply have committed fraud in a business setting. There is a large diversity of criminals and it is the judge’s job to determine what is a fair punishment for a guilty verdict. Judge Ron Swanson, a federal judge for the Florida District Court of Appeal, deals with using cost-benefit analysis daily to determine what is fair for everyone involved. Before becoming a judge, Judge Swanson was a prosecutor coming out of law school in the University of Florida. As a prosecutor and a judge, Judge Swanson has always worked to bring justice for the victims, the defendant if he or she is innocent, and for the citizens
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
In determining which crime theory is most applicable to the Andrea Yates murder case, one must establish a position on her guilt or innocence. If one agrees that the original 2001 verdict of guilty is correct then the Classical theory would best apply. Beccaria’s Classical theory asserts that people think before they proceed with criminal acts. When one commits a crime, it is because the individual decided it would be advantageous to do so, when one acts without benefit of effective punishment (Pratt, 2008). However, if one agrees with the 2006 verdict of not guilty by reason o...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
moral decisions, we will be analyzing why this scenario poses a dilemma, possible actions that
Jack McCoy also reminded the jurors that this hideous crime was plan, not just a reaction. The jurors must not only decide the fate of the defendant, but they need to also remember how Mr. Ngai live was taken away from him; it wasn’t just slipping away, it was beaten out of
“ ….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).
Thus, the judge may know little more about the case than the facts necessary to support a guilty plea. When decision makers are faced with incomplete information and the predictions they are required to make are uncertain, defendant characteristics, such as the race of the offender is used to determine how dangerous they will be when out roaming in the streets. This may skew their decision and give partial sentencing verdicts.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
Plea-bargaining constitutes one of the staples of the American Criminal Justice system. The practice entails an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant in criminal cases where for the most part the defendant forgoes his trial by pleading guilty to his respective charges. By pleading guilty, the defendant receives a less severe charge compared to the original. The plea by the defendant saves an enormous amount of time for both parties since they do not allocate resources in order to prepare for trial. Similarly, the availability of money is also a factor of the plea-bargaining practice because instead the defendants can save a substantial amount of money the trial might cost. Theoretically, with the majority of criminal cases using
A study was conducted in which participants were presented with three dilemmas. One dilemma was called the Trolley Dilemma: a trolley is headed toward five people standing on the track. You can switch the trolley to another track killing only one person instead of five. Subjects were asked to decide between right and wrong.
Emotions and logic play an important role at the moment of decision making. In the play “Twelve Angry Man”these factors are used to determine the future of a young teenager. At first the jurors use emotions to conclude the boy’s guilty of his father murder. However throughout the play, the jurors start to use logic to expose the mistakes they made in the first decision. They used logic and analyze the evidence realizing they dismiss important details. Even though emotions are part of the human nature sometimes they can blind our judgment.