Criminal Justice Paper on Ethical misconduct in the judicial system

Ethical misconduct in the judicial system is a cause of numerous wrongful convictions. The major perpetrators of the ethical misconduct in the judicial system are the prosecutors, who have been known to employ underhanded tactics with the aim of getting a conviction at any cost. The result of this has been the conviction of innocent individuals on for it to be discovered later that the conviction was wrongful, mostly in the knowledge of the prosecutors (Pollock, 2103). Some of the methods in which the prosecutors act unethically include the use of jailbird witnesses, refusing to disclose evidence that would weaken the case and intimidation of witnesses. These are loopholes that need to be sealed if the judicial system is to get reformed. The accounts of jailbirds should not be held admissible in a court of law, as they usually try to get in favor with the prosecution (Pollock, 2103). This makes them commit perjury by incriminating suspects with whom they share the cells. Most of the jailbirds are promised lesser sentences for giving testimony that might lead to a conviction of their peers and this makes them compromised. The prosecutors should also be held responsible for any malpractice propagated by them in the trial process. The immunity they have continued to enjoy is partly to blame for the prevalence of wrongful convictions.

            The norm that is usually experienced in correctional facilities and probation offices is apathy towards the suffering of the prisoners and felons. This is because the administration found in these facilities tend to view that the suffering they experience as serving them right for committing crimes in the society. The prisoners are often beaten and raped by their fellow prisoners inside the correctional facilities. This beating is also sometimes inflicted by the wardens. The inmates inside the prison are not held accountable for the suffering they inflict on fellow inmates and the society on the outside is not concerned. This makes it very hard to effect reforms in the system. As a new administrator in a correctional facility, I would institute policies aimed at rehabilitating the inmates (Pollock, 2103). This includes engaging them in intensive vocational training and activities, such that they are so busy learning something new that they do not have time for conflicts. This would have the advantage of giving the inmates a skill that they can use to earn a living on the outside once they have done their time.

            If I were a prisoner treated poorly by a prison official, I would demand to have an audience with his/her superior. This is likely to help out if the higher-level administration of the prison is following the law and not corrupt. The threat to report the prison official to superiors has the likelihood of deterring similar actions of poor treatment in the future. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the other officials in prison are not interested in assisting (Pollock, 2103). In this case, the recourse would be to report them to the outside world. This, however, would be hampered by the fact that the prison officials closely monitor any communication to the outside world. A possible way of getting this information to the outside world is to send the inmates that have just completed their incarceration terms to the news agencies. Sending numerous ex-convicts to the press with the same allegations is likely to spur corrective measures in the prisons as the administration tries to save face.




Pollock, J. M. (2013). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (9th ed.). Boston: Cengage