Question Two
There exists a close relationship between the police and the prosecutor that is usually mandated by the law. The prosecutors and the police usually interact during the criminal investigations. Specifically, the prosecutors can request the police to carry out certain criminal investigations by pursuing a given approach of inquiry. Prosecutors and police officers can therefore consult each other in the ongoing cases. In most instances, the consultation arrangement is usually informal and in most jurisdictions consultations between the police and prosecutors do not exist. Generally, the police carry out investigations regarding various criminal incidences in almost total independence. Once the police finish their investigations, they hand over the case to the prosecutors who then prefer charges against suspects in the courts of law. The aspect of autonomy and the absence of police accountability to the prosecutors may give rise to various challenges. Accordingly, in cases relating to police misconduct, the separate prosecutorial and police domain may allow abusive behavior among the police to thrive. When such scenarios occur, the entire criminal justice system becomes negatively affected including the concept of authority and the rule of law (Harris, 2011).
Although the prosecutors have discretionary powers to determine the nature of cases, that power is restricted by because they prosecutor rely on the police to investigate cases and to collect evidence. As such, the prosecutors may decline or accept to prosecute cases presented for prosecution by the police. The factors that influence the decision on whether to file charges go beyond the description of the police report. Some of these factors include: whether there is enough evidence against the suspect and what justice requires.
As regards the evidence presented in support of possible prosecution, the prosecutors must ascertain that the evidence is enough to warrant a reasonable prospect of conviction. Determining whether the evidence is sufficient to prefer charges is usually an objective test. The prosecutors have to consider whether the evidence presented to them is reliable and whether it can be used in a court of law. Accordingly, prosecutors have a duty to enforce the law and do what is just. Doing justice does not only entail prosecuting cases but also means that the prosecutor may occasionally decide against preferring considerably less severe (trifles) charges because justice demands it. This is an important aspect of justice even where the evidence presented would likely support a conviction.
Prosecutorial Discretion
The prosecutors are the very important, if not the most important, officials in any criminal justice system. They exercise unfettered discretion over what charges to prefer, who to charge with a crime, whether to allow plea bargaining, and when to terminate the charges. However, this unfettered discretion, especially over who to charge with what crime, has over the years been abused by the prosecutors. Although most prosecutors use their discretion ethically and wisely, some prosecutors may use their discretion to prefer malicious prosecutions or to refuse to prefer charges on the basis of their personal political beliefs. There is no denying that prosecutorial discretion plays a big role in the criminal justice system and should remain that way. However, prosecutors should be an accountability process through which prosecutorial discretion is checked, especially where there are repeated complaints against a prosecutor regarding arbitrary use of their discretion (The Crime Report, 2012).
Question Four
The excessive prosecutorial caseloads provide various challenges that ultimately harm the defendants, victims, and the public.
Harm to the Defendants
Prosecutors who are faced with caseloads in their dockets tend to focus less on each case. This may be good news to the defendants. However, the prosecutors who are overburdened by an influx of cases often fail to identify the least liable offenders hence defendants do not get their sentences reduced. Accordingly, it is likely for the prosecutor to make errors which enable defendants who are undeserving of the sentencing breaks to get their sentences reduced. As such, excessive prosecutorial caseloads hinder the prosecutors from exercising their prosecutorial discretion objectively.
Harm to the Victims
Excessive prosecutorial caseloads are also harmful to the victims of crimes. Harm usually occurs because when the prosecutors are overburdened they have little or no time to meet with the victims. As such, the prosecutors fail to obtain important information from the victims that would be crucial in securing a conviction of the crime perpetrators. Lack of communication between the prosecutors and victims often leaves the victims feeling victimized yet again. Such feeling denies the victims therapeutic justice that they pursue from the criminal justice system.
Harm to the General Public
The excessive prosecutorial caseloads put pressure on the prosecutors to spend less time to study the cases. This may lead to a scenario where some guilty defendants are wrongfully acquitted or plea bargains that may be too lenient. As such, the offender escapes justice because the prosecutor was unable to prepare properly for the case. Wrongful acquittals provide an opportunity to the offenders to continue committing crimes within the community thereby affecting the peaceful coexistence of the law-abiding citizens (Gershowitz, 2011, p. 279).
References
Gershowitz, A., Killinger, L. (2011). The State (Never) Rests: How Excessive Prosecutorial
Caseloads Harm Criminal Defendants. Northwestern University Law Review 105.1.
Harris, D. (2011). The Interaction and Relationship Between Prosecutors and Police Officers in
the U.S., and How This Affects Police Reform Efforts. Legal Studies Research Paper
Series Working Paper No. 2011-19. Retrieved From
The Crime Report (2012). Study: Prosecutorial Discretion Leads to Inconsistent Decision-
Making. Inside Criminal Justice. Retrieved From
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2012-12-study-prosecutorial-discretion-leads-to-inconsistent
