Conviction is a Moral Issue

Conviction is a moral issue that numerous guiltless individuals face. Wrongful conviction is the demonstration of blaming a blameless individual for a wrongdoing in an official courtroom, through which on consequent examinations the judgment is demonstrated mistaken. To look at the unfortunate behavior of wrongful conviction, I will utilize the instance of the Central Park Five. The Central Park Five were all illegitimately indicted for ambushing and assaulting a jogger in Central Park (2019). I discovered that a white lady, had been out running in central park and she later was discovered beaten and assaulted. The people sentenced were African American and Hispanic. They were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for the wrongdoing they didn’t commit.

There are various sorts of misconduct which can lead to innocent people being convicted. According to the article “Causes of Wrongful Conviction: Looking at Student Knowledge” eyewitness misidentification is one of the main sorts of wrongful conviction (Bell, Clow, and Ricciardelli, 2008). I believe that eyewitness’s need to be completely positive about their decisions. I say this because they can forget and just chose someone because they are forced. According to Pollock, Improper police or prosecutor behavior may influence witnesses to identify the wrong person but mistaken eyewitness testimony may not involve any wrongdoing on the part of police or prosecutors (Pollock, p.307).

Another type of wrongful conviction is forensic science (Bell, Clow, & Ricciardelli, 2008). Specialists on occasion commit forensic misconduct. They report false information, deluding declaration, or lab misrepresentation. At times these specialists are not fair, so they work cooperatively with police and examiners to incline toward one side of the law. They realize that their unfortunate behavior is undiscoverable because they realize that judges don’t have any knowledge in that field. They even demolish basic proof.

False confessions are another type of misconduct (Bell, Clow, & Ricciardelli, 2008). Police and prosecutors make defendants give wrong allegations. Sometimes they are cruel, make up proof, and make individuals confess. For instance: this helps to remember the Central Park Five. The Five people were forced into admitting to these extraordinary wrongdoings. As indicated by the article, “Central Park Five: The true story behind When They See Us” the DNA proof from semen found at the scene didn’t coordinate to any of the five young men, investigators depended exclusively on the underlying cross examinations (2019). Notwithstanding, the five reclaimed those announcements during preliminary expressing they had been constrained and compelled by police into giving false admissions. Pollock expresses that bogus admissions are ground-breaking to such an extent that juries have indicted people when there is exculpatory DNA proof presented at preliminary (Pollock, p. 308).

Pollock additionally expresses that racial bias and confirmatory bias are kinds of unfortunate behavior (Pollock, p. 308-309). Racial bias occurs at times. For instance: Like I expressed over the Central Park Five who were among the African American and Hispanic ethnicity. The ladies who was struck and assaulted was white. I believe that racial bias racial bias played a role in this case because back then there was still prejudice occurring. Pollock states that defendants are all guilty and most are black (Pollock, p. 308). Confirmatory bias is the point at which somebody overlooks proof that is in opposition to what they accept (Pollock, p. 309). If we look at the Central Park Five case there was no proof against the five however they made them express false admissions to implicate them, and since the DNA did not coordinate any of the five, they utilized an item that contained DNA of one of the five and utilized that against them.

Judges, prosecutors and defenders all play a role in the misconduct of wrongful conviction. Judges play a role since they fail to ensure trails are reasonable when defenders are absent. As per Pollock, the security of judges keeps them from the impacts of their choices, in spite of the fact that their choices are open to the public and can make controversy (Pollock, p. 312). Judges have fantastic power, commonly utilized through choices to deny or acknowledge plea deals, choices with the help of proof, and choices about sentencing. Some important qualities judges ought to maintain are trustworthiness and reasonableness. It is better to be honest and legit. Reasonableness is another relevant value since judges need to hear the two sides from the protector and defender to figure out what is best for sentencing.

Prosecutors play a role in misconduct since they fail to show all proof accessible. This may make prosecutors have a favorable position over the defenders. Prosecutors additionally use proof that has been altered by cops. This happens because as Pollock states prosecutors are resistant from Section 1983 liability for their choice to indict or acts made in anticipation of or during preliminary (Pollock, p. 309). A relevant value that prosecutors ought to maintain is to be straightforward. I say this because prosecutors sometimes leave evidence out so that an individual look bad and this is not fair because if prosecutors know the individual is innocent, they should make sure the individual goes free.

As for defenders, they are made to give false evidence that results in wrongful convictions. They are viewed as lazy and ignorant because they violate their expert obligations and moral codes. As per Pollock, defense lawyers have moral obligations like prosecutors. They additionally have one of a obligation to their customer. They must choose whether to take a case or not, and they choose whether to urge a customer to consent to a plea deal (Pollock, p.5). Two important relevant values defenders ought to maintain is reasonableness and to work hard. I believe reasonableness is a decent value since defenders must give the individual a reasonable shot at demonstrating the innocence. I state hard work because it is difficult to go against prosecutors when they are fundamentally making the individual look awful in front of the jury and judge.

The ethical problem for wrongful conviction is the level of competency of the judges, prosecutors, and defenders. The defender and the prosecutor play a role in leading the court towards conviction of a charged individual. The defender must do all possible to guarantee a guiltless suspect isn’t indicted by using all the evidence that shows the person isn’t guilty. The prosecutor must do their best to guarantee a suspect is discovered liable. Therefore, if the defender isn’t that well skilled, there will always be wrongful convictions. The judge should guarantee to apply the laws to make sure a decision is made based on the evidence. If this does not happen then wrongful conviction will continue to happen.

To solve the ethical dilemma of misconduct, I would use professional ethics. Professional ethics is a specific type of applied ethics relating to the behavior of certain professions or groups (Pollock, p.10). Professionals must act morally and follow the code of ethics. Judges, prosecutors, and defenders must maintain professional conduct, and not enable individual feelings or belief to treat individuals unreasonably or amateurishly. They should also be honest to themselves and the law.

They should speak the truth about their mistakes while staying away from conflicts and biases. I would likewise utilize normative ethics which figures out what individuals should carry out and characterizes moral responsibilities dependent on moral frameworks or different methods for examination (Pollock, p.10). I picked normative ethics since judges, prosecutors and defenders should want to make the best choice and not the wrong one. If they stay away from unfortunate behavior, they are demonstrating the great which is moral. A ethical system I would use is utilitarianism system. Utilitarianism is a teleological moral framework that judges the results of a demonstration that applies to the conviction that the activities which are performed by an individual relies on the result performed by the individual in the general public (Pollock, p.38). On the off chance that there is no proof against the individual being sentenced, at that point it is best just to release them free of all charges against them.

In the criminal justice system misconduct is common amongst those who should follow the law. Judges, prosecutors, and defenders who participate in a conviction of an innocent person should face consequences. I would stick to professional ethics to solve the misconduct of wrongful conviction. I say this because it is important for judges, prosecutors, and defenders to act professionally and uphold the law. Once that professionalism has been broken, they are corrupt. There should be a strict sentencing policy for those who are involved in the misconduct, and any judge who aids such people or engages in misconduct should be fired and prosecuted.

The prison should educate the offenders on their right and inform them that there is right to appeal for a wrongful conviction case, and the court should be ready to listen to such cases. Lastly, those who aren’t aware of their right and the law should be educated on not admitting to a crime they didn’t commit no matter the circumstances because if they do not give in there is a chance they would be left alone. If they confess, its on record and they will face punishment.