#1 Situation
In this case, the defendant is willing to plead guilty as long as the court will grant him or her sentence of probation as the punishment. This move is commendable, but the defendant has to realize that there is a chance that he might not be convicted of any crime as there lacks enough evidence from the office of the district attorney, therefore walking free. At this point, it is important to realize that as much as the victims wish to see the burglar behind bars, it is probable that the final judgment of the court will not favor them. From this case scenario, everyone wants to have the upper hand in the case.
I would, therefore, advice the defendant to plead guilty, as he/ she requested, than failing to do so and later be forced to go for trial where he or she might receive a harsher punishment than probation. As for the victims, they should embrace the probation sentence although it does not seem fair. They have to realize that as much as they wait for the trial, there might be no one to handle their case on time as there are several cases of the same caliber with fewer magistrates to deal with them. Also, the space in the jails is limited. As a result, it would take time to see justice served. Therefore, although the punishment seems less harsh as they would have desired, they should accept it, as long as the guilty individual faces the consequences of their actions (English Tutors, 2015).
#2 Situation
The prosecutor’s move to lie about his identity with the aim of incriminating the murderer was more of a right than a wrong. Although the move violated the defendant’s sixth amendment rights and also the legal profession, it was a decision that helped save the lives of many other people who would have ended up being victims of the murderer’s cold actions.
In my opinion, the move was simply a white lie that was aimed at driving the criminal to confess his crime. It is a clear sign that the prosecutor was more interested in doing what was right instead of saving his license. It was; therefore, wrong to sanction him simply because he juxtaposed as a public defender a proof that there were “flaws in reasoning” (Cross, 2004, p. 225).
References
Cross, R. B. (2004). Ethical Deception by Prosecutors. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 31: (1), 215- 234.
English Tutors. (2015, September 19). Project #82601 - Criminal justice discussion. Retrieved July 21, 2016, from Spiffy Carart: http://www.spiffycarart.com/projects/82601/English/criminal-justice-discussion
