In and out of court cases the prosecution has certain ethical guidelines and requirements they must follow as an officer of the court. Should they come into knowledge of a crime or breach in code of ethics the prosecutor is required to report these discrepancies to the court whether or not this means damaging their case. In this case if the prosecution had known of a violation of the individual's rights by the police they would have been legally and ethically required to report this issue to the court whether or not it would hurt or help their conviction in court.
These expectations of reporting by the prosecution as well as all ethical codes are greatly enhanced by the court system themselves. Constant stop and review by the system at each step means that at any time should a branch of the law breach their code of ethics they are more likely to be caught in this. The more often ethical codes and discrepancies within a case are reviewed the more likely they are to be caught in violation of these ethics. The requirement of the prosecution to report any known breach of ethics also greatly heightens the bar of ethical requirement within the court system.
[...] (2010). “Non-Media” Jury Prejudice and Rule Lessons from Enron. Review of Litigation, 133-158. Eakin, M. (2009, July 27). Media Ethics with a Life at Stake: The Sam Sheppard Murder Trial. The Institute for Applied & Professional Ethics. Retrieved September from http://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2001- conferences/media-ethics-with-a-life-at- Stake-the-same-sheppard-murder-trial/index.html. Double Jeopardy Legal Definition of Double Jeopardy. [...]
[...] The protection of the system from bias is also a key role in this idea so as to protect not only the individual but also the integrity of the system itself. Those in power are unable to abuse the courts and justice system as well as legislation to their liking to change an undesirable outcome. This meaning, that a judge or prosecutor cannot retry a case simply because they did not like the outcome the first time a defendant was tried. However, in some cases double jeopardy does not apply because the original case did not reach the required stage in the process to qualify as a first charge. [...]
[...] This prevents wrongful prosecution of an individual and may hinder the strategy of the prosecution, in how far they can take their pursuit of justice. The corrections system uses their code to treat inmates fairly and protect all of their rights now only from the system but also each other. In and out of court cases the prosecution has certain ethical guidelines and requirements they must follow as an officer of the court. Should they come into knowledge of a crime or breach in code of ethics the prosecutor is required to report these discrepancies to the court whether or not this means damaging their case. [...]
[...] (n.d.). Mayo Clinic. [...]
[...] The 5th amendment states in the Constitution, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. This states that an individual cannot provide self- incriminating evidence while testifying in court, meaning that a defendant or witness cannot incriminate themselves in a crime while testifying in court. While safeguarding the defendant from self-incrimination this amendment also serves as a double edged sword by providing the jury with the idea that the defendant would self-incriminate by testifying. In turn, this furthers the idea that the defendant was proving guilt by his lack of testimony. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
