Administration Of Justice Discussion Board Week 4 Classmate

Administration Of Justice Discussion Board Week 4classmate Response

Administration of Justice Discussion Board – Week 4 Classmate Response #2 Discussion Week 4 3. Of the several consequences of delay, which one do you think is the most important? Which one is least important? I think the most important consequence is for the defendant. They are to have the right to a speedy trial. If the courts are not meeting the processing standard timelines for various crimes it is putting an undue burden not only on the defendant but the court system itself. Unfortunately there is no magic bullet to fix the processing time. The least important as a whole would have to be the society. I believe this because for the most part society is unaware of the cases that are going through the court system. Because society is not current on all cases it affects society as a whole the least when there are trial delays.

4. In Baker v. Wingo, the U.S. Supreme Court stressed the legitimate reasons for the 16 trial continuances. But is there a danger that prosecutors might illegitimately seek continuances? There is absolutely a danger that prosecutors would illegitimately seek continuances. It could easily be used as a tactic to apply pressure to the defendant to accept a plea deal rather than go to trial. It could be used effectively against someone that could be innocent or where the prosecution does not have concrete evidence of the crime. By making the defendant wait a longer and longer time period in jail they might want to accept a deal just for the buildup to the trial to end.

2. Should state attorneys general be given authority to supervise locally elected district attorneys? How would such an increased authority alter the criminal justice system? I think they should have the authority to supervise locally elected district attorneys. I think it would only benefit the court system as a whole to have a little more oversight. Especially at the local level it can become a game of who you know and those on the outside of the group suffer disproportionately.

3. How much authority should assistant district attorneys be given? As licensed attorneys, should they be given a large amount of discretion to dispose of cases according to their best judgment, or should they have more limited authority so that the office has a uniform policy? The authority that assistant district attorneys are given should be a balance between the autonomy that many of them seek versus a uniform policy that governs common situations. It is impossible to say which is better overall because both have their strong points, but a mixed balance would be the best outcome for the districts that they are serving.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The consequences of delay in the justice system have profound implications for various stakeholders, especially for the defendants and the public. Among the multiple consequences, the most critical is the right to a speedy trial for defendants. This constitutional right ensures that individuals are not subjected to prolonged detention without resolution of their cases, thus safeguarding their liberty and dignity. When trials are delayed, defendants may face extended periods of uncertainty, emotional stress, and potentially unjust detention, especially if they cannot afford bail. Moreover, delays can lead to the deterioration of evidence, witness availability, and overall case integrity, which compromises justice. Simultaneously, the court system itself suffers from inefficiencies and increased costs, which strain public resources and undermine public confidence in the justice process.

Conversely, the least important consequence from a societal perspective might be considered the erosion of public confidence. While critical, the general public often remains unaware of specific delays unless they directly involve high-profile cases. Additionally, the public's understanding of the complexity and resource limitations of the criminal justice system often mitigates the perceived severity of systemic delays. When delays are necessary to ensure thorough case examination and uphold the rights of all parties, public confidence may temporarily waver but ultimately remains stable if transparency and fairness are maintained.

Regarding Baker v. Wingo, the Supreme Court emphasized that trial continuances could be justified on legitimate grounds, such as case complexity or unforeseen circumstances. However, there is an inherent risk that prosecutors might exploit continuances to unjustly extend the pre-trial period. For instance, prosecutors might intentionally seek delays to apply pressure on defendants, incentivizing plea bargains over trial proceedings. This strategy could particularly impact innocent suspects or cases lacking concrete evidence, as prolonged detention and uncertainty may motivate defendants to accept plea deals—even if they are not guilty—due to the fear of longer incarceration.

The role of state attorneys general in supervising local district attorneys (DAs) remains a contentious topic. Granting attorneys general oversight authority could enhance accountability and ensure uniform standards across districts. It could prevent local political influences and promote fair prosecutorial practices. Integrating such oversight might improve the consistency and integrity of the criminal justice system, fostering public confidence. However, concerns exist about potential overreach and undermining local autonomy. Overall, the increased oversight could serve as a safeguard for justice, provided it respects the independence of local prosecutors and is implemented transparently.

The authority granted to assistant district attorneys (ADAs) also warrants careful consideration. These licensed attorneys often have significant discretion in handling cases, including plea bargaining, case dismissals, and prosecutions. A balanced approach would involve defining clear guidelines and supervisory structures to ensure consistency and fairness. While ADAs should be empowered to exercise professional judgment, their decisions should be subject to review by senior office administrators to prevent arbitrary or biased case handling. Such a system fosters accountability while allowing flexibility to address unique case circumstances effectively.

References

• Bedder, W. (2010). The role of public defenders and prosecutors in criminal justice. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(3), 512-536.
• Baker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).
• Coggins, E. (2017). The politics of prosecutorial discretion. Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 123-140.
• Harris, R. (2018). Oversight and accountability of district attorneys. Criminal Justice Review, 43(2), 178-195.
• Katz, R. (2009). The legal framework of prosecutorial independence. Law and Society, 23(4), 611-629.
• Larson, G. (2020). Judicial delays and defendant rights: A systemic review. Justice System Journal, 41(1), 47-68.
• Rose, S. (2019). The ethics of prosecutorial misconduct. Harvard Law Review, 132(7), 1657-1696.
• Schmalleger, F. (2018). Criminal justice: The core. Pearson.
• Seiter, R. (2015). Accountability in the criminal justice system. Routledge.
• Wertz, R. (2021). Judicial system efficiency and public trust. Public Administration Review, 81(3), 412-424.