Misconduct by Government Officials - Research Paper Example

Research Paper on the Appropriate Reform for Dealing with Prosecutorial Misconduct Research Paper on the Appropriate Reform for Dealing with Prosecutorial Misconduct Introduction The legal system that forms a major part of the criminal justice system in any country is charged with the mandate of ensuring fairness and justice for the citizens. These include the law abiding citizens as well as those who have been charged for taking part in different crimes. Despite these expectations of the sector, there have been a number of discrepancies in a number of countries. They are brought about the misuse of the prosecutors over their powers. In particular, a number of them have been found to abuse their discretional powers as they tend to violate the laws that were formed in 1963. In this respect, this becomes unacceptable by the law. Therefore, in order for the criminal justice system to be in a position to provide the mandate for which it is created, there is a need for the reformation of this problem. This will provide a solution to the issue as the prosecutors among other law enforcers will be in a position to act within their specified duties. In this sense, both the criminals and other citizens of the countries will be given the opportunity to enjoy their individual rights of justice. Misconduct by government officials: prosecutors Within the legal profession, there are those convictions that have been made in a wrongful manner. Although most of the time these have been contributed by honest mistakes that could not have been prevented or avoided, there are those that have taken place as a result of ignorance and the lack of responsibilities by the members of the legal profession. This is a sign that in far too many cases, the same people who are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring truth and justice since they are the law enforcement officers and mainly the prosecutors lose focus of this obligation and instead of working towards the maintenance of justice they mainly focus on securing convictions for themselves regardless of the consequences placed on the defendant. It mostly applies to the prosecutors who aim at providing evidence against the defendant despite the fact that they also possess alternative evidence to prevent the incrimination of the said defendant. This means that they may have evidence to incriminate a different individual hence leading to the wrongful conviction of the first defendant (Davis, 2007). Prosecutor misconduct It refers to the illegal action or the lack of action by the prosecutor especially in the attempt to influence the jury to convict a defendant inappropriately or to give a punishment that is harsher than it is necessary. At times, it is also known as selective prosecution. This is a problem that has currently been experienced in the criminal justice system of most countries. It is created by the prosecutors who tend to abuse the discretionary powers. They violate the rules that were established in 1963 Brady vs. Maryland case. This rule requires the prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence towards the defense. In particular, most of the time, it has been found that the prosecutors purposefully withhold the evidence that they have from the defense team during the initial trial. This is the evidence that might have originally prevented the conviction of the accused. As a result, it leads to the wrongful conviction of the defenders, which at times may end up in incarcerations or even worse punishments. In this respect the main problem lies in the fact that the defendant is wrongfully incarcerated and punished for a crime that they did not commit for the sole reason that the prosecutor wanted to provide evidence against them and as such did not want to provide whatever present evidence that may prevent the arrest of the defendant. Despite this intensity of the problem, the prosecutors are rarely punished for this violation. The problem lies in the fact that there is a significant lack of accountability for this violation. In particular, the courts always do not sanction the prosecutors directly and personally for their misconduct. It has been found that the model rules that guide professional conduct are too vague. They have also been found to be too broad and should, therefore, be made into instructions that are clearer for the prosecutors to follow and abide by the rule and laws of their profession (Lindell, 2005). Basis of the problem The evidence of fraud, negligence and misconduct among the prosecutors or the police is a disturbingly and not an uncommon among the exoneration cases that are related to DNA. Based on their nature of work that is related to law enforcement and the prosecution of offenders, most of the prosecutors feel that they are immune and thus cannot be punished irrespective of the laws that they violate or the regulations that they go against. They operate under the rule that was established in 1976 under the Imbler v. Pachtman. However, as part of the law enforcers they are expected to perform their duties and activities in a respectable way that will enable them to serve as role models for the individuals that they accuse as well as those that they interact with on their day to day activities. In this case, therefore, they should not be allowed to goal head with this feeling as it enhances the rate at which they do not turn over the potential exculpatory evidence to the defense hence infringing on their rights. Strict rules should be placed for this notion to be abolished and more powers to be given to the courts to place sanctions as well as give punishment to the prosecutors who are found to go against the ethics and norms that guide them in their everyday duties (Davis, 2007). Prosecutorial misconduct is wrong and is not supposed to be used as an excuse or means to prosecute the guilty. It is also an abhorrent means to be used in the prosecution of the innocent. It lacks a place in the criminal justice system, which is expected to be fair and accurate in the effort to provide protection for the innocent. For this reason, it is important that the sanctions are placed under a standard to ensure that the prosecutors do not misuse their powers. Alternatively, if they are involved in the abuse of power and misconduct, then it will be easy to punish them or even to place them under the sanctions that are provided by the courts (Davis, 2007). Proposal to fix the problem According to Alex Kozinski who is the chief Judge of the 9th circuit U.S court of appeal, there is an epidemic that is related to the prosecutor misconduct (Lindell, 2005). This was identified during the Baca case that is located in Riverside California. It is important to have the necessary oversight of the situation through the need to find solutions in order to fix these problems. One of the ways through which checks can be put on this enormous problem is by the reduction of the powers that are given to the prosecutors. In addition, for the law enforcement officials, it would be appropriate to establish reforms and commissions that are related to the area of criminal justice. These would help in the study of the wrongful convictions and advocate for major changes to take part in the systems. The commissions that have been set up in various countries and states around the world have already started to recommend and help in the improvement in the implementation of the investigations. They have been conducted in the form of lab operations, prosecution, defense and the judicial review that is necessary to assist in ensuring that there is justice and integrity within the criminal process. Some of the effective commissions established include the involvement of all the experts in the criminal justice system. They include the crime victims as well as those members of the public who have been conned. With these varied perspectives together with the support from both the officials and the public, it will be possible to achieve reforms that are not only true but also lasting. These reforms can be related to the different areas of the criminal justice system. For instance, there are the reforms that are related to court activities. They involve the expansion of the judicial reporting requirement that is in existence with a mandate to identify and report any form of egregious prosecution misconduct. This also includes any form of violation against the constitution. This should take place despite the fact that they may be deemed harmless. It involves the identification in complete names of the prosecutors who are found to engage in prosecutor misconduct, monitoring their adherence with judicial reporting and noticing obligations as well as making public records. In addition, it requires that the absolute immunity that is possessed by the prosecutors currently be replaced from its form of civil liability with the kind of qualified immunity. There is also the kind of reform, which is related to the adoption of amended ethical rules that are concerned with the special responsibility of the prosecutors. Therefore, it will involve the expansion of punishment for prosecutorial misconduct and the increased transparency that results from the increased disciplinary process of the State Bar (Davis, 2007). The third reform is connected to the Attorney, who is expected to provide ethical training for the prosecutors as well as the criminal defense attorneys. They will be required to establish the internal misconduct procedures and to develop effective and efficient exculpatory evidence policies (Davis, 2007). How the proposal is likely to work This proposal is likely to work if it involves all the relevant members in the criminal and justice system. The reforms will help to enhance the responsibility on the part of the prosecutors and make them liable for any form of misconduct. They are also expected to possess and exercise a high degree of commitment and seriousness regarding the issue. For instance, different states can form a criminal justice reform commission in order to examine and evaluate the wrongful convictions and the reforms that lead to the prevention of justice. This will include the ability of the criminal justice system to identify and report the varied cases of prosecutor misconduct. In addition, the state bar will also take the relevant measures by disciplining the prosecutors who are involved. In this sense, prosecutors will take liability for their actions and will act within their presented powers with the awareness of the devastating effects that result from the unethical behavior. In this way, they will be obligated to perform their jobs with the level of integrity that it deserves. Conclusion There are several misconducts that are conducted by people who are in different professions. They take advantage of the powers that have been given to them to violate the powers that have been given to them. One of the areas that have been mostly affected by this problem is the legal profession where the prosecutors abuse the powers that have been given to them to abuse certain laws without being punished or sanctioned by the courts. They have been given some discretion on how to go about their duties. Although some of them may not be illegal, they are unethical, abusive and violate the rights of those who are convicted by the law. It is important that the prosecutors realize that they are not under immunity and that they should abide by their professional laws. In this case, there is a dire need for reforms. This can only be attained through the standardization of the sanctions that will keep the prosecutors in check and enable them to follow the rules and procedures that are provided by their relevant professions in regards to their skills and duties. References Davis, J. A. (2007). Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindell, Chuck. (2005). "Judge finds that Anderson hid evidence in Morton murder trial". Austin Statesman. Cox Media Group. Read More