Attorney-Client Confidentiality

Attorney-Client Confidentiality

            The concept of attorney-client confidentiality is the relationship, to include communication, trust, and confidentiality, between and attorney and his client. Its role to the criminal justice system is very important, since it further protects an individual's rights. This allows an attorney to effectively represent his client and bring about his defense.

            Whenever an attorney represents their client with the concept of confidentiality, they are building up trust between the two and avoids any misrepresentation of the client. Of course, this allows the attorney to represent his client to the best of their ability. Specially since if the client begins hiding and distorting facts, then the defense may not have a great outcome.

            The confidentiality concept does not always work in favor of the client. In fact, if a client intends to commit a future crime, then his or her attorney is obligated to disclose any information to prevent future harm. An attorney must be able to distinguish between a client's idle threats and serious intentions.

            A huge concern, amongst citizens and the criminal justice community, is the fact that if a suspect was to disclose honest information about crimes, then by under obligation the attorney is obligated to hold his words and remain silent. This means that attorneys may as well be defending criminals. Other cases may also appear that raise the question of whether or not an attorney should reveal confidential information about his client to the court.

            The concerns continue to occur through out communities. Both sides have more than enough evidence to support them. However, we will embrace the attorney-client confidentiality as long as it it continues to exist. The status of this concept is too important to be abolished.

References

Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Due Process and Legal Defenses

Due Process and Legal Defenses

                        It is clearly written in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Yet, an individual may be a criminal if their act falls under the three important elements of a crime. However, if the individual wanted , he or she can claim a legal defense to protect themselves.

            We must acknowledge that there is no formal definition of what the term due process means. However, this does not mean that there is not a limit as to what the concept of due process may stand for. Over the past decades, there have been significant legal developments in the area of due process and individual rights.

            The concept of due process ensures that individuals are treated fairly and received the proper protection from the government. Due process’ importance is unmatched, especially since the law and court’s legitimacy are based on the public’s perception of due process.

            In order for a crime to be a crime, the act requires three important elements.  These elements are actus reus, mens rea, and concordance between the two. Actus reus means the act must be a “guilty” act or omission. While the word mens rea means a “guilty” state of mind.

            There are a total of ten general legal defenses that defendants may use in court to excuse their behavior. Three of these defenses are infancy, intoxication, and insanity. The defendant can plead infancy is he or she is too young to form a guilty state of mind. The defendant can plead intoxication if he or she was intoxicated at the time of the crime and failed to rationally form mens rea, or a “guilty” state of mind. Last but not least, a defendant can claim insanity if his or her insanity did not allow him or her to rationally form mens rea.

References

Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Prosecution Versus Defense Paper

Prosecution Versus Defense Paper

            There are many differences between a defense counsel and a prosecutor. A prosecutor has many influencing powers under the prosecutorial discretion, while the defense counsel have to represent an accused's rights. The interactions between the defense counsel and the prosecution exist characterized by conflict. However, this does not exclude the chance of working together to create a settlement between the two.

            A defense counsel is critical for those who are accused of crimes for the practice of an individual's constitutional rights. These defense attorneys have a critical role in the implementation and interpretation of the accused's rights. Defense attorneys must attempt to reconcile claims on their time, attention, and loyalty. Some of their actions may also cause problems, especially when his advocacy on behalf of a client may conflict with the expectations, that citizens perceive, of being an officer of the courtroom. (Meyer & Grant, 2003)

            Under the prosecutorial discretion, the prosecutor has the flexibility to choose among other possible courses of action. This means that he also gets the chance to decide on what to do in a particular case. The prosecutor can also decide whether to file charges, the number of charges, and what specific charges. Another key discretion that the prosecutor has is the ability to make an offer to the defense as a plea bargain or ask the court to dismiss the charges. (Meyer & Grant, 2003)

            Even though the defendant is not required to present any defense, the prosecution has the legal burden of proving the accused's guilt. The prosecutorial discretion may also influence the flow of cases in the court system, since they operate with comparatively few legal constraints on their decisions. In fact, over the past years, judge's discretion in sentencing was drastically reduced since the advent of mandatory sentencing rules. (Meyer & Grant, 2003)

            Prosecutorial discretion is necessary to tailor the legal response for the case. Prosecutors must also determine which statutes are applicable based on the facts of any case. The defense counsel, on the other hand, represent individuals who are facing criminal law charges. There job does not require them to determine an individual's guilt, that is up to the judge and the jury. (Meyer & Grant, 2003)

References

Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The courts in our criminal justice system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.