Judicial discretion

The discretion in the criminal justice system is placed to protect society from injustice in the abuse of power. Discretion is a judgment that is exercised by applying principles and values and facts, which can be explored through the police discretionary role, judicial discretion in punishment and sentencing and the effectiveness of the diversionary schemes applicable to the young offenders. Although the role of discretion within the criminal justice system has many advantages, it can lead to…

between police officers and prosecutors is the discretion that they both have in dealing with suspects (especially in incidents of domestic violence). The purpose of an arrest and prosecution are separated in order to protect citizens from unreasonable police power. Officers make arrests based on probable cause. They use discretion when making an arrest. Prosecutors file charges if they can prove a suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They use discretion when deciding whether to charge a…

Abuse of Judicial Power in the Victorian Era vs. Today “The strong were always eating the weak.” - James Rollins. This connects to the abuse of judicial power because countless judicial leaders take advantage or do not give the unentitled a say because of personal benefit or bias. The abuse of judicial power is a social issue that occurs when someone with higher power abuses their power in the courtroom, makes the wrong discretion against one being tried. This social issue is comprised of…

Racial disparity in the criminal system may influence a judge’s discretion on a case where a crime may be morally wrong, yet the decision of a judge may give a less sentence based on race, status, and history. For example, graduate Judge Aaron Persky in the State of California vs. Brock Turner case, gave Brock Turner a 6-month sentence instead of 6 years in a rape case. Many felt that Judge Persky was being too leniency and may have been biased because he and the perpetrator went to Standard.…

Dworkin’s meaning to integrity pertains to judicial decisions by judges on any case, that is, how to use precedent and techniques to determine the outcome of trials. Integrity as a tool, is used for judicial decisions, based of of communal moral standards- starving for a concept of fairness and equality- these decisions are rooted in precedent and discretion of judges; though possibly leading to a divergent from a cohesive voice, the philosophical concept benefits society overall. Integrity has…

prosecutorial discretion coupled with minimal judicial oversight gives rise to inconsistent sentencing and a non-transparent system. In the current system, prosecutors have almost unlimited discretion which can lead to overcharging, where the accused may face “duplicate charges for single acts or crimes charged at higher degrees than the evidence can reasonably support” (Work, 2014, p. 462), creating cases that are easier to leverage into guilty pleas. This is possible because using their…

Agencies have discretion and they are able to use that discretion as they see fit. However, when a challenge to that discretion becomes an issue, the court can become involved. The two cases are similar because they are challenging an agency’s discretion, but end with two different outcomes. These are very important cases dealing with constitutional rights. In Heckler v. Chaney, inmates serving a death sentence filed a complaint against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alleging the drugs…

Professional discretion can sometimes be crossed. These discretions are what bind us as professionals in our daily conducts. Some of the professional discretion that we always abide by include: integrity, self-motivation, appearance, self-confidence, teamwork, communication skills, and time management. Integrity: This is the complete honesty in our actions. This is the trust that the public holds for us as professionals and it should always be above reproach. Empathy: This is the…

By almost any measure, the federal prosecutor's wielded too much power. Many federal laws govern similar behavior and are written broadly, prosecutor's commonly have multiple charges from which to chose. This means they typically have many sentencing ranges to chose from as well. Thus, they can--and do--threaten defendants who want to exercise their trial rights with charges that will carry longer sentences than the charges will file if defendants who refuse to waive their rights to a jury trial…

Dicey, of course modified in later editions, referring to John Wilkes's case, that "conferment of any discretion tends to arbitrariness and therefore there is something inconsistent with the rule of law." But then, as time passed, it was realized that conferment of some discretion for the purpose of application to the facts of a given case is something you cannot do away with. The area of discretion should be the minimum possible, and set norms, standards or guidelines should regulate it, so…