Criminal Justice and Policy
Author
Institution
The criminal justice system is essential in any state because it controls and prevents crime while administering justice. Discretion is an individuals’ ability in the criminal justice system to make operational decisions based on personal judgment instead of following formal rules. Different individuals in the criminal justice system decide what to do based on the situations present to eliminate the pressure that a system’s overload brings with it, political considerations, personal values, and morals. Discretion forms the informal part of the criminal justice system(III & Edwards, 2015). The letter of the law involves strict adherence to the law while applying the statute’s spirit and policy. The letter-of-the-law demands strict and exact force of the language in a rule.
Discretion is the authority to decide. In this sense, the person has the power to choose. The individual has the authority to decide what to adopt and what not to deem fit according to the individual’s capacity (Cole & Gertz, 2013). Therefore, the choice made by the person exercising discretion is the correct choice, and its correctness is hard to challenge as there are no external criteria to challenge the decision. The decision made by the individual comes from the authority vested in the individual based on their duties and qualifications.
Discretion in decision-making helps keeps cases moving through the system while promoting compassion and wisdom. Without discretion, there would be too many embarrassing questions that would often give the impression that unfairness occurs. Discretion, as opposed to the letter-of-the-law, is essential particularly in criminal proceedings that involve consensual crimes, assault, or white-collar crimes because of the unique nature of the conduct, circumstances, or the relationship between the parties involved to provide arguments against the full application of criminal sanctions(Donovan, 2010).
Discretion, as opposed to letter-of-the-law, is an essential aspect of society’s quality of life because it stems from the evaluation of the openness of the said society in deviating from freedom from state intervention and assessing the quality of the discretionary authority involved. Jury nullification is the practice of jury discretion that favors the defendant, where the panel believes that the individual committed the crime. It is mostly applicable in cases of nonpolitical felonies(Rauxloh, 2012). In this case, the jury believes that the penalties stated by the letter of the law for such crimes are too severe or from their sympathy for the offenders. A prosecutor also exercises discretion where they decide to either initiate or terminate criminal proceedings on a suspect. In this process, they are at their discretion to weigh the rights of the suspect, the victims’ feelings, and the capacity of the prisons to handle criminals.
Discretion by individuals of criminal justice raises the question of the unfairness of judgment on the suspects. These individuals may use intention as a weapon to charge, reward, or discriminate against a suspect. Lack of control in terms of reviewing the exercising discretion raises the question of fairness of the process. Discretion exists as an informal procedure that comes as a complement of formal methods.Since discretion preference exists based on an individual’s authority, there is the duality of formal and informal practices. Cases, in this case, become administrative acts that require action rather than deserving a hearing.Discretion allows for a police officer to decide whether to flag down a driver, issue an arrest or even leave a person behind.Sometimes a police officer may exercise discretion that may bring about the notion of racial discrimination and profiling especially in incidences that involve minority races(Cole & Gertz, 2013).
References
Cole, G. F., & Gertz, M. G. (2013). The criminal justice system: Politics and policies.
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2013). The American system of criminal justice.
Donovan, J. M. (2010). Juries and the transformation of criminal justice in France in the nineteenth & twentieth centuries. Chapel Hill, N.C: The University of North Carolina Press.
III, L. F., & Edwards, B. D. (2015). Introduction to criminal justice. Routledge.
Rauxloh, R. (2012). Plea bargaining in national and international law. Routledge.