4.2: Corruption in a System

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 80160

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

Speaking to one portion of the CJ System, Prosecutor and Defense Attorney Roles Aronson, (1977) concludes that two significant models exist, they are: Situational and Systems Model. As examples of each he provides that confidentiality of attorney-client relationships or information obtained may be sacrificed when other’s interest are at stake. The latter model of Systems is more absolute detailing confidentiality as a duty and would be always wrong if compromised. This is not unlike teleological or deontological approaches previously discussed. Defense attorneys must zealously approach each client’s case. Their duty is to represent each client with sufficient capacity that is fair and reasonable. Nothing exhibited in an attorneys Canon of Ethics states that all defendants are innocent and it is the duty of all defense attorneys to end a trial in that result. Likewise nothing is listed that indicates a prosecutor must find all defendants charged guilty (Ortmeier, & Meese, 2010).

Continuing with defense and prosecutors to examine this ethical situation, two phrases come to the forefront. They are plea bargaining and prosecutorial misconduct. At first blush the reader may say well obviously a prosecutor not conducting her/himself appropriately is much worse (objectivity and not jumping to conclusion is necessary in this discussion). A defense attorney owes a client (particularly in a criminal case) to name a few, duty to investigate, control direction of litigation, trial conduct, appeals and plea bargaining (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010). Prosecutors are obligated to represent the government and ensure justice, not convictions. To this end, exercise restraint in use of power, share information, base decisions on probable cause, and provide timely information to the defense. This system is considered an adversarial system. Parties to the criminal prosecution (defense and prosecutor want to win). Both entities must be cognizant of conflicts of interest and confidentiality. Influences that may enter into the defense/prosecutor discretion is political, economic, prison overcrowding, severity of the offense, public outcry to name just a few (Fagin, 2015; Pollock, 2010).

Pleas bargaining is essential to the American jurisprudence system. The system would collapse under its own weight if plea bargaining was impermissible. Generally good cases do not normally go to trial as evidence may weigh against the right of a day in court. The defendant must agree and waive her/his right to a public trial. Often court dockets necessitate plea bargaining and the judicial triad (Judge, Prosecutor, and Defense Attorney) agree to pleas. Problematic to the system is that defense attorneys, especially Public Defender Offices, have extremely heavy caseloads and over whelming pressure to settle cases. Prosecutors may slide less desirable cases into the mix that may not make it through a trial. Plea bargaining is rife for unethical behaviors by both side, either in form of misconduct or neglect.

Although starting this discussion relative to the BAR (defense and prosecution attorney participation), Aronson specifies that Situational Model and Systems Model are significant to these two roles; I submit the models are a good fit, a fair representation of the over-all CJ System. Discretion in this framework is not a stranger to other systems within the other CJ system. Police are distinguished as the gate-keeper of the CJ system, (strict interpretation of the law or spirt of the law), which crime to enforce and which to provide a stern lecture. Supervisors have latitude in which policy indiscretion must receive a formal reprimand compared to a lecture. Judges, correctional, probation and parole employees are confronted with discretionary use of authority. Sklansky (2006) maintains that diversity hiring has all but eliminated the “blue wall of silence” in the policing profession.

Courts are not immune from unethical or illegal behaviors, as seen in the “Kids for Cash” scandal in Pennsylvania Courts. A bribery scandal involving Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced to 28 years in prison in connection to a bribery scandal involving his acceptance of one million dollars in bribes from developers of private juvenile detention center. In return the judge would sentence juveniles to those private facilities in those cases that Ciavarella presided over (NPR.org). The case came to be known as "kids-for-cash."

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Mark Ciavarella leaves the federal courthouse in Scranton, Pa., in February. (David Kidwell)