Ethical Dilemma: Justice and Law

Sample Solution

 

As a prosecutor, I would have a duty to share the information that my expert witness has been sanctioned in another state for overstating her qualifications and her testimony has been excluded in other states because it does not meet legal tests for admission of expert testimony with the defense. This information is relevant to the case and could impact the defense's strategy. The defense may want to challenge the expert's credibility or try to exclude her testimony from the trial.

I would also have to consider whether or not to use the expert's testimony at all. The fact that her testimony has been excluded in other states is a serious concern. It suggests that her qualifications may not be as strong as she claims and that her testimony may not be reliable

Full Answer Section

    However, I would also have to consider the strength of the other evidence in the case. If there is other evidence that links the suspect to the crime, I may still decide to use the expert's testimony, even though it is not as strong as I would like. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to use the expert's testimony is a difficult one that would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. I would need to weigh the pros and cons of using the testimony and make a decision that I believe is in the best interests of justice. Situation 2 As a judge, I would consider a number of factors when sentencing two individuals for the same crime of burglary, including:

• The age of the individuals. The 20-year-old has not been in trouble before and participated only because the other individual was his friend. This suggests that he is less likely to reoffend than the 25-year-old, who has a history of juvenile delinquency.
• The circumstances of the crime. The burglary was not violent and no one was injured. This suggests that the crime was not as serious as it could have been.
• The individual's remorse. The 20-year-old has expressed remorse for his actions and is willing to make amends. This suggests that he is taking responsibility for his crime and is committed to changing his behavior.

Based on these factors, I would likely sentence the 20-year-old to a shorter sentence than the 25-year-old. I would also consider giving the 20-year-old probation or community service, in addition to a jail sentence. This would allow him to stay out of jail and continue his education or work. It would also give him the opportunity to make amends for his crime and to demonstrate that he is committed to changing his behavior. I would justify my decision by explaining that the 20-year-old is less likely to reoffend than the 25-year-old and that the burglary was not as serious as it could have been. I would also explain that the 20-year-old has expressed remorse for his actions and is willing to make amends. I would believe that this sentence is fair and just, and that it will help to rehabilitate the 20-year-old and protect the community.