Identify areas of prosecutorial discretion, provide examples of their discretion,
and discuss unethical and ethical criteria for the use of their discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion has to do with an attorneys choices. They have to use their own logic and
discretion in order to decide on legal charges, sentencing, plea bargaining, etc. Attorneys must use
this discretion on a daily basis. Evidence must be analyzed, crime data, and all other evidence must
be analyzed as well. Ethical use of this criteria is key. Attorneys in a court of law have to abide by
the rules and regulations just as law enforcement or anyone else in the criminal justice or judicial
system. Unethical use of this information could possibly include, using false evidence, or knowingly
putting dishonest witnesses on the stand. Doing something like this is not only unethical, it is
against the law. Attorneys could be disbarred and/or prosected themselves if they are caught doing
something like this. Ethical standards are essential when handling a case. It is important to keep
one's own opinion at bay and stick to the facts. Attorneys know the difference between ethical and
unethical discretion. Ethics can not always be taught to those that have not already learned it. Most
of us have learned this from a very early age. It is taught to use by our parents and our role models
as we grow up.
Should different rules apply for the legal representation of those known to be
guilty and those suspected of guilt? What problems might exist in
implementing such a dividing line?
No. Different rules should not apply for the legal representation of those known to be guilty or
those suspected of being guilty. Everyone should be given the right for equal legal representation.
Guilty or not guilty, they are always innocent until proven otherwise. Even with sufficient evidence
the case always has to go before a judge. No one has the right to accuse anyone of guilt or
innocence until they see a judge. They are the ones who decide this. If something like this was
implemented, there would be too many problems. Accusations of discrimination would be prevalent.
There would be a lot of upset people. Most likely a great deal of law suits against the court system.
Everyone has the right to a fair trial according to our constitution. One cannot be accused of being
guilty without proper protocol. Everyone must go through the same process. That is the only fair
way to do things. An attorney must remain unbiased when representing a case. They must stick to
the facts and remember to represent the client in the best professional manner possible. Does
anyone think that they would have a hard time representing someone as a defense attorney, if the
knew that the suspect was indeed guilty?