1. In post-conviction settings, the interest shifts from the protection of the accused to the finality of judgment. Argue for and against this position from both a legal and policy perspective.
2. The rights of the accused are dependent upon the effectiveness of counsel. Is this a correct statement? Explain and provide a factual example, (of which can be hypothetical), that would justify your answer.
3.
Guide On Rating System
Vote
The use of eyewitness testimony is a reliable and accurate tool in the criminal justice system. Agree or disagree? Explain and provide evidence to support your answer.
1. Arguing for the shift in interest from the protection of the accused to the finality of judgment:
From a legal perspective, the shift in interest can be justified by promoting the principle of legal certainty. Finality of judgment ensures that the legal process has reached a definitive conclusion, providing closure to both the accused and the victims. It also brings stability to the justice system by preventing repeated challenges to convictions, saving time and resources. Additionally, finality encourages respect for the judiciary and promotes public confidence in the criminal justice system.
From a policy perspective, prioritizing finality of judgment helps allocate limited resources more efficiently. Post-conviction proceedings can be costly and time-consuming, causing delays in other cases. By shifting the focus to finality, the justice system can divert resources towards preventing future crimes and improving rehabilitative efforts for convicted individuals.
However, arguing against the shift in interest:
From a legal perspective, protecting the rights of the accused remains crucial, even in post-conviction settings. The principle of due process mandates that individuals have a fair and impartial trial, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered. Ignoring or downplaying the protection of the accused could lead to potential miscarriages of justice, where innocent individuals remain incarcerated. Upholding the accused's rights also maintains the integrity and credibility of the justice system.
From a policy perspective, prioritizing finality of judgment can undermine the pursuit of justice. It may discourage the examination of new evidence that emerges after the conviction, potentially revealing wrongful convictions. Prioritizing finality over justice compromises the credibility of the justice system and erodes public trust. Additionally, without a continued focus on the protection of the accused, there may be fewer incentives for individuals to report potential wrongful convictions, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability within the criminal justice system.
2. The rights of the accused are dependent upon the effectiveness of counsel:
This statement is correct as effective legal representation is an essential component of ensuring a fair trial and protecting the rights of the accused. Factual example: Let's consider a hypothetical scenario where a defendant is charged with a serious crime but cannot afford competent legal representation. In this case, the accused may not fully understand their rights and could potentially be coerced into making false confessions or accepting unfavorable plea deals. A lack of effective counsel may lead to inadequate investigation, failure to challenge improper evidence, or failure to present a strong defense, significantly compromising the accused's rights and potentially resulting in an unjust conviction.
3. The use of eyewitness testimony is not always a reliable and accurate tool in the criminal justice system:
Disagree. While eyewitness testimony can be considered valuable, it is not always reliable and accurate. In many cases, eyewitness identifications have been proven to be faulty due to memory biases, suggestibility, or external influences like cross-racial identifications. Studies have shown numerous instances where innocent individuals have been wrongfully convicted based on mistaken eyewitness identifications. Additionally, eyewitness testimony can be affected by subjective interpretations and perception biases, leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
For example, the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals, has highlighted numerous cases where DNA evidence later proved the innocence of individuals convicted solely on eyewitness testimony. These cases demonstrate the fallibility of relying solely on eyewitness testimony, supporting the need for caution when considering its evidential weight. The criminal justice system should consider additional corroborating evidence and adopt best practices, such as proper witness identification procedures, to minimize the risks associated with potentially unreliable eyewitness testimony.
Got a question with my answer?
Cheapmath.com is completely free!
Asking question is free.
Getting answers is free.
+99