Introduction
Majority of all prosecutions are faced with many caseloads. This calls for an option to decide on which group of offences and offenders o deal with first. This usually brings about the issue of delays of other offenders and offences in addition to the general delay in courts. This delay is at times not justified to other offenders as they are made to wait for the offenders and offences considered critical to be prosecuted first (Forsé, 2005).
The choice associated with deciding which offences are more critical than others is a difficult and expensive task on the side of prosecutors. This program involve hard choices which consume resources as the resources are allocated as if an emergency as occurred thus decisions are abrupt and not well planned. Various researches have proved that the various procedures and information used in selecting highly-rate and dangerous criminals and crimes are usually misleading as they have grounding facts and basis in making judgment and some are at times rendered ineffective for identification purposes (Worrall, 2006). The selection procedure is usually dependent on the attorneys’ definition of career criminality. The definition has no common understanding and definition as it has persistent offending, high-rate offending and dangerous offending overlapping the definition provided by the jurisdiction attorneys.
However, this priority prosecution program is of important in that the various detrimental criminals are prosecuted as early as possible thus ensuring that the victims of such more detrimental crimes see justice is done and seemed to be done (National Institute of Justice (U.S.), 2003). The program is evolving in its form as it has currently focused on criminals who perform crimes at higher rates; this will curb repetitive actions of search crimes as the police are liaising with the prosecution in monitoring such crimes.
Developing such programs will have a deeper meaning on the justice system of high countries by prosecuting more serious cases. Priority Prosecutions Program has its advantages overweigh the negatives, this programs has been in the past been support by the public since they feel that such cases deserve priority since such offenders affect a large part of the society. In this paper we are going to find out whether such programs will have an implication to the public (Worrall, 2006).
However, prioritizing prosecution will make it hard to meet the public’s expectations. Choices have consequences, and there are numerous consequences associated with this program. One, this program might deliver immature investigations and immature justice since prioritizing gives minimal time to investigators to find more evidences on any crime. Police need more time to investigate on suspect’s role in any crime. If the police will take to court any suspect with not enough evidence, the law might constrict judges to find the suspect not guilty (Hoag, 2006).
In addition to this, it not must for any prosecution to meet the public expectation. There fact the court has to abide with in order to deliver justice to both the suspect and victims (United States, 2011). It depends on whose side the public is standing with, since in different cases the public stand in either side.
References
Forsé, M., & Parodi, M. (2005). The priority of justice: Elements for a sociology of moral choices. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Hoag, T. (2006). Prior bad acts. New York: Bantam Books.
National Institute of Justice (U.S.), United States (2003). Correctional boot camps: Lessons from a decade of research. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
United States, & United States (2011). Strategy to combat transnational organized crime: Addressing converging threats to national security. Washington, D.C: Executive Office of the President.
Worrall, J. L. (2006). Crime control in America: An assessment of the evidence. Boston:
