Bail and Discrimination

     Typically when a person comes before a Judge requesting bail the factors that are used include: marital status, work, length of residence, family, criminal history, ties to the community, and whether the accused has appeared for court before.  Ms. Banks spoke about a study that revealed "that defendants with lower education and income were less likely to get bail and more likely to receive onerous bail terms” (Banks, 2013).  Also, when white and black defendants with the same education, background, and income, the white defendants were more likely to receive bail.  It is also interesting to note that a prior criminal record counted more against black defendants, but white defendants were treated more seriously when looking at the seriousness of the offense. 

     As to gender bias when it comes to bail, according to an article written by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Turner stated in their article that women were more likely to be granted pre-trial terms and lower bail than males.  Dr. Johnson and Dr. Turner went a step further using information from the Detroit’s Recorder’s Court that white males and females and black females were more likely released prior to trial  (Turner & Johnson, 2006). 

     I would also like to mention the disparity in bail when it comes to the rich and the poor.  To give a millionaire bail of a million dollars, of course he/she will be able to make that amount without blinking an eye.  However, to give a poor person a bond of a thousand could, in essence, be the same as no bail at all.   So should there be an additional category for discrimination now for the indigent?  I have attached an article that may be an interesting read.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bail-equals-jail-equation-punishes-new-york-poorest-article-1.472123

References:

Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca, USA: SAGE Publications.

Turner, K., & Johnson, J. B. (2006). The Effect of Gender on the Judicial Pretrial Decision of Bail Amount Set. Federal Probation a journal of correctional philosphy and practice. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/federalcourts/pps/fedprob/2006-06/gender.html

Attorney-Client Confidentiality

Attorney-client relationship is based upon the attorney’s ability to keep the client’s affairs confidential, and the attorney actually has an ethical obligation to do so.  At what point does that ethical obligation of confidentiality become negated by something that the client does.  Client perjury is a difficult issue when it comes to attorney-client confidentiality.  What does an attorney do when a criminal client gives a set of facts for the majority of the representation, and when the client gets on the stand starts to give a complete different set of facts?  The attorney knows that the client is committing perjury due to other circumstances with the case.  Good question.  The attorney could at that point attempt to remediate by asking the court to allow the attorney to have a minute with the client.  The attorney could also side bar and explain that he/she needs to withdraw at this time due to a personal conflict and ask how would the court like to proceed.  I believe it is an extremely difficult situation to be in when a client has decided to commit perjury without fully realizing the consequences of those actions. 

If a client comes to an attorney for help in furtherance of a criminal act the confidentiality between the attorney and client is negated.  In other words, if a client comes into an attorney’s office and tells the attorney that she has put poison in her boyfriend’s dinner and he eats at 6pm.  The time is currently 1pm.  The attorney has a duty to report the information to prevent future harm.  However, if the boyfriend had already eaten the dinner, and became ill.  The girlfriend was then subsequently arrested, and retained an attorney.  She then told the attorney that she had put the poison in his dinner that information would be subject to attorney-client privilege. 

Bibliography

Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca, USA: SAGE Publications.

Entrapment

Entrapment

Has anyone ever watched the cable television show where they leave the keys in the car and the car doors unlocked and the police are waiting by for someone to steal the car? That is what the police call a bait car. Is it entrapment when someone (not the owner) gets in and tries to drive off with the vehicle? How about leaving a purse on a bench and walking away from it with the intent for someone to take it?  Entrapment?  It would seem that most would say that if he/she was an honest person to begin with, the person would not have gotten in that car or walked away with that purse. 

                Does entrapment infringe on a person’s rights? Morally or otherwise? One expects a certain kind of deception when it comes to law enforcement.  During interrogation and investigations.  It seems to be a matter of course that officers can be deceptive when speaking to suspects and asking them questions as long as the suspect hasn't invoked their rights.  An example of deception during interrogation would be telling a suspect that the co-defendant is currently in the next room giving a statement in great detail of his involvement of the crime they were both involved in.  The reason for this deception of course, would be so the co-defendant would of course start talking himself. 

              Entrapment is a limitation placed on law enforcement, and the courts use a subjective test to make decisions to decide on whether or not a person was entrapped.  This means that the court is actually looking at the suspect’s thought processes when making a decision, and not at the officer’s behavior (Banks, 2013). The issue of entrapment is when law enforcement forces the hand of someone to do something illegal who would normally not commit a crime.  Taking the bait car from above as an example, the the court would look at the person's thought process when he/she got into the car and started it up, and attempts to drive away. Most people don't walk by looking into cars, at least not consciously.  However, the judge isn't looking at most people the judge is looking at the alleged perpetrator at the time of the incident.  Now let's look at the purse on the bench, and this is a completely different scenario.  A person could in theory, grab the purse with the intent of running after the person who left the purse to return it.  Also, most purse's include a wallet inside which normally includes an identification of some sort that would allow the return of the purse.  Different scenarios could result in completely different outcomes when it comes to defenses to entrapment.

               I have attached an article about a man who was acquitted using an entrapment defense.  The case that follows it controversial.  Normally in these types of cases defendants are convicted, but in this case he was acquitted. I think that one must take special note of the jury question during deliberations.  The jury asked a question about the solicitation.  It speaks volumes as to how the jury made the decision in this case.

 http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20140112/NEWS/140119803?Title=Deltona-sex-sting-raises-entrapment-issue#gsc.tab=0

References

Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics (3d ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca, USA: SAGE Publications.