Delimma

Katrina Brown Instructor, Alden Berry Ethics and Community Relations, CJC 212 November 11, 2011 Prosecutor Dilemma The characteristics of this case involve a highly sensitive arena about the concept or rationality of an individual who murders another person. To be fair and consistent as a competent prosecutor, I must evaluate the motive of an individual as it pertains to the moral principles of a community. The challenge that I face must be weighed against the thought process of an individual in society versus the ethical values and professional principles that I am obligated to carry out as a prosecutor. In addition, an inference has to be made after I have evaluated and investigated this case; which involves an elderly man who made a life changing decision while under duress as he watched his wife suffer from Alzheimer’s disease. This case leaves me with the ultimate decision of how to proceed along with ensuring that I provide the courts with the appropriate charge against the defendant. In order for me to move forward, I must review all reports, interview witnesses, and evaluate the evidence contiguous of the situation. While proceeding to make a sound judgment of this case I will perform my duties in a professional and moral manner. Most importantly, I must implement the mind set of justice whereas making decisions and judgments that will change the course of a person’s life. My conduct along with my moral principles will be controlled based on trust from the public that my intentions are to protect and serve every individual in my community. As I ponder over all aspects of this case, I will not allow the media to dictate my actions. Instead I will continue my tasks as a prosecutor and sustain my responsibilities as I conduct an assessment regarding the integrity of the defendant; obtain a criminal background check of the defendant, and consider the fundamentals that lead to murder. Therefore, I will embrace the ethical code of conduct for attorneys and prosecutors while being neutral as I seek justice as a moral principle by denouncing the alternative of being influenced by the local media. On the other hand, a tool that the media loves to engage in is a trial by jury or by a grand jury. The purpose of a grand jury is to avert malevolent prosecution of a defendant and to determine whether or not the evidence presented is sufficient to be able to indict a defendant. However, my jurisdiction does not have a grand jury system which leaves me to determine the appropriate charge. The moral values and principles that I uphold are my regulatory compass and my ethical code for adhering to embrace honor and decency along with the basic principle of do no harm. Although this case is about killing a human being, it is imperative that all elements of this particular crime are deliberated to determine an accurate indictment. While contemplating the correct charge, I must take into consideration the components surrounding the killing of a person and the charge of murder that is defined as the elements of an unlawful killing with malice aforethought (Net Industries 2011). Certain determining factors that influences the type of murder charge is the mitigating circumstances, the relationship between the victim and the defendant, the age, background, and criminal record of the defendant, the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime, and whether or not the defendant’s state of mind significantly diminished his mental stability (Criminal Law 2003-2011). Furthermore, the people’s law dictionary, defines murder as, “the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought and with no legal excuse or authority.” In order for me to convict this defendant of murder, I would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime during the time that he was in a specific mental state. Moreover, to charge the defendant with first degree murder the actions he performed must involve premeditation with malice. In addition, to charge the defendant with second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter the actions he performed had to be committed in the heat of passion (Gerald and Kathleen Hill). To charge this defendant with voluntary manslaughter means that the crime was neither intentional nor premeditated. The elements required are as follows: a. The victim of the crime is dead; b. The victims death resulted from the act or omission of the defendant; c. The killing of the victim was unlawful; d. At the time of the killing, the defendant had the intent to kill caused by adequate provocation; and e. The provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant (Legal Free Dictionary). Conclusion After much deliberation and countless hours of research, I have determined that the appropriate charge should be voluntary manslaughter, which is the same as murder in the second degree. My professional moral principles and my ethical internal compass is the centerpiece that drives me to ensure justice for all regardless of the status of an individual. Ensuring the safety of society and making the best effort to keep the peace in our communities is an ethical and a moral priority of mine as I go about my professional role as a prosecutor; however, I am not doing anyone justice if I decide to take a case or provide a certain charge just to suffice the media or to play politics. Ultimately, the art of reasoning has been the driving force that has led this country for several decades and I take pride in knowing that I have examined every aspect of this crime before making a decision about the appropriate charge. Additionally, I vigilantly deliberated over the evidence and the elements surrounding the mitigating circumstances that led the defendant to his decision to give his suffering wife a lethal dose of sleeping pills. Therefore, I am charging the defendant with voluntary manslaughter due to the absence of malice coupled with the evidence I gathered while investigating this case that illustrated to me that the defendant did not have a cooling period before killing his wife. In fact, the defendant calmly turned himself over to the police. Let me be clear about the fact that the defendant committed murder, but it takes much more time and dedication to delve into the mindset of an individual to determine his rationality. In the end, the defendant’s intentions were to alleviate his wife from suffering any longer from an incurable disease and his belief that death would be in the best interest of his wife. Bibliography Criminal Law Lawyer Source. Copyright 2003-2011. Retrieved on November 9, 2011. www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com Hill, Gerald and Kathleen. 2011. The Peoples Law Dictionary, Publisher Fine Communications. Retrieved on November 10, 2011. www.dictionary.law.com Net Industries. 2011. Web. Retrieved on November 11, 2011. http://law.jrank.org/pages/8425/Manslaughter-Voluntary-Manslaughter.html The Legal Free Dictionary. Web. Retrieved on November 11, 2011. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter