Judicial Process: Prosecutor v. Defense Attorney – Boundaries of Advocacy

See attachment for more instruction Class: Judicial Process Topic: Prosecutor v. Defense Attorney – Boundaries of Advocacy As stated in the lecture note for this module/week, the prosecutor is charged with finding and pursuing justice. Conversely, the defense attorney is to zealously advocate on behalf of his/her client. Both sides are required to adhere to the constitutional mandates for justice. However, the lecture note and the textbook confirm that each side can lose their way in the search for justice and exceed the boundaries of advocacy. The most common boundary violations are prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence and defense attorneys manipulating the system in an effort to thwart justice, but let us look at the issue from another angle. Thread: Drawing from the textbook, the lecture note, Scripture, and your scholarly research, discuss the following question and using scholarly criminal justice sources as support. Provide the rationale for your position: • Would it be acceptable for a prosecutor to destroy evidence of a defendant’s guilt? (Note: The question is not asking about a prosecutor withholding evidence of a defendant's innocence, which is the usual concern.) • Analyze from a legal and moral perspective whether it might be acceptable for a defense attorney to let his/her client be found guilty? • Examine what impact of the decisions described above (prosecutor and defense attorney) would have on the public’s trust in the criminal justice system. • You must support your opinions with scholarly sources. Write a personal thread (see attachment for more detailed instructions): Class: Judicial Process Topic: Prosecutor v. Defense Attorney – Boundaries of Advocacy As stated in the lecture note for this module/week, the prosecutor is charged with finding and pursuing justice. Conversely, the defense attorney is to zealously advocate on behalf of his/her client. Both sides are required to adhere to the constitutional mandates for justice. However, the lecture note and the textbook confirm that each side can lose their way in the search for justice and exceed the boundaries of advocacy. The most common boundary violations are prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence and defense attorneys manipulating the system in an effort to thwart justice, but let us look at the issue from another angle. Thread: Drawing from the textbook, the lecture note, Scripture, and your scholarly research, discuss the following question and using scholarly criminal justice sources as support. Provide the rationale for your position: • Would it be acceptable for a prosecutor to destroy evidence of a defendant’s guilt? (Note: The question is not asking about a prosecutor withholding evidence of a defendant's innocence, which is the usual concern.) • Analyze from a legal and moral perspective whether it might be acceptable for a defense attorney to let his/her client be found guilty? • Examine what impact of the decisions described above (prosecutor and defense attorney) would have on the public’s trust in the criminal justice system. • You must support your opinions with scholarly sources. While ponding the answers to the questions above, be sure to consider the following: • Analyze the importance of assembly-line justice. • Consider the principal actors in the courtroom workgroup. • Consider the principal factors affecting prosecutorial ethics and the defense of criminal defendants. • Interpret the four major legal issues surrounding the right to counsel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Details concerning layout and references: All writing and references must be APA style Integration of biblical principles - One Bible reference is required Thread requires 250-275 words Here are the Textbooks for one of your references (three references required): Please pull your references from chapter 6-8: Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2018). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage. Grading Criteria: Thread: Substantive Requirements Met 11.25 to 12.5 points: All key components of the Discussion Board Forum prompt are addressed in the thread. Thread: Content and Research Engagement 18 to 20 points: • Thoughtful criminal justice analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, comparing/contrasting concepts). • Every major point is supported by at least one scholarly criminal justice source published in the last 10 years. • Relates each key issue to scriptural/biblical principles with use of one or more relevant biblical citation. Replies: Content and Research Engagement 18 to 20 points: • At least 2 unique replies are present • Moves discussion forward, identifies new issues, and brings clarity to issues being discussed. • Every major point, in each reply, is supported by at least one scholarly criminal justice source published within the last 10 years. • Relates every major point to scriptural/biblical principles through use of one or more relevant biblical citation. Structure (30%) Advanced 90-100% Composition, APA Formatting 11.25 to 12.5 points: • Spelling and grammar are correct. Sentences are complete, clear, and concise. • Sources cited in-text are free of current APA citation errors. • All sources are provided in a Reference section at the end of thread in current APA format. Word Count 9 to 10 points: Required relevant word count of at least 250 words is met for the thread. ***Writer: I will request you as the writer for two personal replies of others on the same topic, a day or two after writing this thread. The reply instruction is below. I will include them again when I request the replies with the other writer’s threads attached*** Replies: Evaluate how a classmate’s view on the choices by the prosecutor and defense attorney might affect the search for justice in the future. For example, if the prosecutor’s/defense attorney’s actions are acceptable to your classmate, what could that mean in cases next year? Reply to one classmate regarding the prosecutor question and a different classmate for the defense attorney’s decision. Whether you agree or disagree, the grading rubric in this course requires you to support your opinions with scholarly sources.