The criminal justice system plays a crucial role in ensuring law and order within society. Without the criminal justice system, it would be difficult for stability to be achieved at local, national, and international levels. Various organs within the system ensure that justice is served through crime reporting, prosecution, defense of suspects, and provision of judgments (Trivedi & Van Cleve, 2020). Prosecutors are some of the essential members of the justice administration system. They play an essential role in protecting human dignity and ensuring that human rights are respected. The role of prosecutors is to ensure a smooth running of the criminal justice system. The prosecutors have a crucial role in criminal proceedings, appropriately handling evidence and ensuring that they obtain the right information from suspects. Across their roles, prosecutors are involved in pre and post-sentencing activities, which must be conducted ethically. The prosecutors' profession is embedded with a distinct professional discretion, which helps prosecutors perform their duties efficiently (Trivedi & Van Cleve, 2020). However, unethical issues could arise across their profession, making the prosecutors both legally and ethically wrong. In avoiding such challenges, prosecutors must understand the ethical boundaries that they should never cross. Connectedly, this paper provides the various ways in which prosecutors violate their professional discretion, thus making unethical conduct. The first ethical issue in the prosecution profession can be understood by examining the role of state prosecutors. State prosecutors ensure that justice is served to both the suspects and the victims. Ensuring this role is upheld, state prosecutors may feel that they must find the suspects guilty, thus satisfying the state obligations (Green, 2019). Essentially, the prosecutors may perform acts that aim at ensuring that the suspect is found guilty without considering the ethical implications of their decisions. In the real sense, the role of a state prosecutor role is not the victims' satisfaction but rather to provide justice to the two parties. This implies that state prosecutors must investigate cases, not find suspects guilty, but to serve justice to the two parties. In essence, the prosecutor must establish adequate and accurate evidence to find the suspect guilty of the said criminal offenses. In case no direct evidence pointing towards the suspect, then the prosecutor must drop the case. However, if the prosecutor finds adequate evidence, then they must file them before a court of law for justice to be served. Unethical conduct arises whereby the prosecutor predetermines the case by alluding with other criminal justice agencies to ensure that the suspect is found guilty. In such a scenario, the prosecutors aim at pleasing both the state and victims. A 2003 study established that prosecutors' unethical decisions contributed to increased cases of reversal of cases within the US Justice System (Green, 2019). In essence, reviews into unethically conducted cases establish that prosecutors used cunning methods to indict suspects rather than following the right procedures. On the contrary, state prosecutors are hired to ensure that the government can easily establish the causes of causes and the origin of criminal conduct. Failure by prosecutors to find suspects guilty over a long period could render them useless to the government. In essence, such prosecutors could be deemed inefficient in their roles (Green, 2019). Consequently, their jobs could be under threat whereby they lack promotions or other benefits of performing exemplarily in the criminal justice system. Such demands and job pressures make state prosecutors start using cunning methods to ensure that victims feel like justice has been served. Unethical conduct could also be witnessed in prosecutors' refusal to reveal exculpatory evidence in court. The US Supreme Court, during a case of Brady versus Maryland, 373 US. 83 (1973) mandated that prosecutors must provide all the exculpatory evidence to the defense team (Green, 2019). Providing such information is crucial in ensuring that the defense team produces accurate and credible arguments before the jury. However, in some cases, prosecutors have refused to provide the desired exculpatory evidence, thus going against the law's ethical and legal requirements. Essentially, exculpatory evidence includes the critical information regarding a case and includes issues like the state witness' motives and the crime scene investigators' failures. However, some prosecutors hide this type of information from the suspects' defense team, leading to unfair trying and unjustified defense arguments. With little and inaccurate arguments in defense of a suspect, it is easier for them to be found guilty of crimes they did not commit. Additionally, hiding some information implies that prosecutors could have predetermined decisions on innocence or guilt. Such behavior crosses the professional discretion among prosecutors. However, hiding the exculpatory evidence from the defense team could be justified by some prosecutors as a reliable measure for ensuring that justice is obtained. Prosecutors are more likely to hide information that they feel could derail their efforts for indicting a suspect. For instance, in the case of planned crimes like a planned murder, it would be difficult to find evidence relating to a suspect. In such cases, the evidence obtained must be well-guarded to ensure that no one interferes with it (Green, 2019). For instance, some pieces of evidence could be planted to indict innocent and unsuspecting individuals. In such a scenario, the prosecutors must act diligently to ensure that the right people are prosecuted. One such measure of ensuring accuracy is hiding the planted evidence. In essence, if prosecutors feel that evidence has been planted, they may decide to hide it from the suspects to hear what the defense team states about the matter. Additionally, providing some sensitive information to the defense team could derail the prosecutors' quest for justice. For instance, if the said piece of evidence is the only one found at the crime scene, then the prosecutors could feel the obligation of concealing it from other people. Providing such information could make it difficult for a case to be understood or for justice to be served for the two parties. Charging discretion could also be violated by the prosecutors, thus leading to crossing the ethical boundaries. Overcharging refers to the tactic whereby prosecutors and the police include additional charges against a suspect. Overcharging helps the prosecutors increase their chances of proving that a defendant is guilty (Miller & Turvey, 2016). In essence, through overcharging, prosecutors have a better bargaining position in the court. This type of prosecution functions by accusing defendants of crimes that prosecutors feel may be difficult to prove, thus inducing defendants to plead guilty. By pleading guilty, prosecutors then have a basis for reinforcing their initial claims. Horizontal overcharging involves the unreasonable multiplication of the crimes committed by defendants. In this situation, all the offenses are charged separately. On the contrary, vertical overcharging happens when persecutors charge defendants with single offenses, which are of a higher order than the initial case. Overcharging could lead to the prosecutors' unethical misconduct, as they force individuals to plead guilty to things they did not commit. The most overcharged criminal offenses include sex crimes, domestic violence, assault, theft offenses, arson and vandalism, and drug crimes. Providing this discretion to prosecutors could result in an increased violation of human rights and illegal activities. According to the overcharging policy, prosecutors are obliged to choose their cases, hence implying that they can choose their defendants (Miller & Turvey, 2016). Giving prosecutors this kind of power implies that they can choose their defendants based on the available crimes. Such a situation is dangerous to the justice system, as the prosecutors are more likely to use stereotyping mechanisms and other cruel ways to indict innocent defendants. In essence, overcharging only aims at matching an individual with the available crimes, thus making it difficult for the defendants to escape.
Overcharging could also be dangerous as it could result in the public's negative criminalization; hence, it should not be done. Prosecutors are supposed to charge defendants for criminal acts that support probable cause. For instance, field invaders' case whereby sports fans run across fields during matches could be essential in understanding how unethical overcharging could be (Miller & Turvey, 2016). In essence, field invaders are fined for disrupting sporting events; however, overcharging prosecutors also add trespassing, criminal mischief, and unruly behavior charges. Such behavior by prosecutors could result in the over-criminalization of a fan who only wanted to gain publicity and willing to pay the indicated fine. Therefore, it is unethical to overcharge because the only outcome would be an otherwise innocent public's criminalization. Despite having unethical impacts on the direction a case takes, overcharging could be necessary for ensuring that the two parties are served with justice. When prosecutors decide to overcharge defendants, they usually put their personal interests ahead of those they represent (Miller & Turvey, 2016). When present with a dilemma, prosecutors must choose between overcharging and using the normal prosecution mechanisms. Some cases are difficult to argue without the addition of charges. In essence, to control public behavior towards an issue, prosecutors use additional charges that tame public behavior. Hence, overcharging could be justified in some situations. Prosecutors are involved in plea negotiations with defendants, a discretion that could lead to the crossing of the prosecution's ethical boundaries. In some cases, prosecutors may be tempted to offer special resentment to the defendants who, in return, offer some charitable contributions (Hamin, Othman & Rani, 2017). However, such behavior could be a crossing of ethical boundaries. In essence, plea arguments are supposed to be done ethically and on a legal basis. Prosecutors may request defendants to pay statutorily-authorized restitutions; however, they are not supposed to dismiss or reduce the charges. Additionally, seeking a judgment to be continued is unethical behavior by the prosecutors. However, this argument can be legally refuted by some prosecutors who argue on a legal basis. In essence, the State Bar explains that special treatment offers for people with minor charges can be accepted as justice can be bought according to the US Constitution. In essence, rather than convicting all types of offenders, prosecutors may serve them with the most appropriate or available justice, which could offer charitable donations. It is unethical for prosecutors to aid in the use of unlawful prosecution and investigative methods. The use of improper investigation methods like entrapment is highly unethical conduct that crosses the prosecutors' professional discretion. For instance, entrapment involves the induction of individuals to committing crimes that they did not commit. The improper prosecution methods aim at causing fear and proving that an individual is wrong, rather than aiming at serving both sides of a case with justice (Hamin et al., 2017). Framing is also unethical prosecution conduct whereby people commit crimes that aid prosecutors in proving their guilt. For instance, in a case of drug trafficking, prosecutors could frame a person associated with a drug cartel to ensure that they disclose such cartels' activities. Another improper investigative technique is offenders' coercion, whereby prosecutors force them to plead guilty to crimes that they did not commit (Hamin et al., 2017). In some cases, prosecutors may use harsh investigative techniques like torture to ensure that criminals provide all the required information. However, this should not be the case as the prosecution should seek justice by hearing offenders' truth.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, despite the arguments against the unethical use of unlawful prosecution and investigative methods, such methods could be essential in extracting sensitive information from some offenders. When dealing with national security issues, prosecutors may use cunning techniques to extract the information they want (Hamin et al., 2017). For instance, in cases whereby terrorists are involved, the prosecutors must use unlawful methods. Failure to use such methods could present national security with huge threats. Therefore, prosecutors must use whichever methods they find best in protecting the national interests. Prosecutors could also use their professional discretion unethically without any hopes of winning the conviction. For instance, prosecutors could file some cases to retaliate against some people or to punish their political rivals. In essence, it is easier for the prosecutors to establish misconduct against their political rivals (Hamin et al., 2017). With such platform and powers, the prosecutors could cross the ethical lines of ensuring justice is served for all citizens. For instance, some prosecutors could be paid to taint politicians by filing corruption or other cases against them. Filing such cases derails the politicians' public image, making it difficult for them to win elections. In such a scenario, a prosecutor crosses the lawful and ethical boundaries; hence must be met with legal actions (Hamin et al., 2017). However, despite its illegality, this conduct can protect the public from electing incompetent leaders. For instance, the government may use such a tactic to ensure that some candidates are locked out of elections. In cases of politicians with past criminal records, such measures could prevent them from attaining elective offices. Prosecutors may also cross the ethical boundaries within their professional discretion by giving prejudiced statements to the media. Sometimes, when performing their media obligations, prosecutors could start making statements that support some sides while also victimizing others. For instance, when asked to give insight into a case's progress, prosecutors could conceal some information from the media to hide them from the opposing sides (Trivedi & Van Cleve, 2020). In making such statements, the prosecutors publicly show their desire to have suspects convicted rather than seeking justice. Prosecutors could also be crossing the ethical boundaries by providing g their personal views on the guilt of the suspected individuals. Additionally, the prosecutors cannot provide their opinions about the credibility of the testimonials by providing facts that are not covered in the evidence sheets. However, this argument can easily be refuted by showing how sensitive case information could lead to poor prosecution outcomes. For instance, in the case of witnesses, prosecutors cannot disclose a witness' identification information. Such information could pose dangers to them. The witnesses could easily be threatened, thus leading to distortion of the evidence side. Therefore, it is ethically right for some information to be concealed from the media and the defense team to ensure the stability of a case. In conclusion, prosecutors must remain within ethical boundaries, even when exercising their professional discretion. However, across their practice, they often cross these ethical boundaries by engaging in misconduct. Despite being termed as misconduct, some activities can easily be accepted based on the role they serve in building the credibility of a case, protecting witnesses and evidence, and ensuring that national security is protected. The unethical conduct by the prosecutors includes: Tampering with evidence, using unethical and unlawful investigative methods, use of improper statements in front of the media or the jury. However, some of these actions can be justified in ensuring the sustainability of cases, the justice system, and ensuring that the two sides get justice.
References
Croy, S. R. (2020). When'Ministers of Justice'Violate Rules of Professional Conduct during Plea Bargaining: Contractual Consequences. Geo. J. Legal Ethics , 33 , 201. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/geojlege33§ion=12
Green, B. A. (2019). Prosecutors in the court of public opinion. Duq. L. Rev. , 57 , 271. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/duqu57§ion=18
Hamin, Z., Othman, M. B., & Rani, A. R. A. (2017). Managing unethical prosecutorial conduct. Advanced Science Letters , 23 (8), 7919-7922. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=rzZZZ8YAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
Miller, R. & Turvey, B.E. (2016). Ethical issues for criminal prosecutors. Penal Law. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288807130_Ethical_Issues_for_Criminal_Prosecutors#:~:text=Prior%20to%20trial%2C%20ethical%20issues,fabricating%2C%20falsifying%20and%20suppressing%20evidence .
Trivedi, S., & Van Cleve, N. G. (2020). To Serve and Protect Each Other: How Police-Prosecutor Codependence Enables Police Misconduct. BUL Rev. , 100 , 895. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/bulr100§ion=26
