Reaction Paper On “i Have Nothing To Do With Justice” By James Mills

Read Complete Research Material

Reaction Paper on “I have nothing to do with Justice” by James Mills

Reaction Paper on “I have nothing to do with Justice” by James Mills

In the fastly changing world characterized by increasing terrorism, crime, rape, and misuse of drugs, and worsening state of judiciary, could be potentially damaging for the entire the criminal justice system (Cole 1975). Coping with these challenges demand much dedication and utilization of highly sophisticated technology and information resources. Moreover, only an optimal use of committed, well-trained, ethical, and qualified potentials may help such organizations in dealing with the rise of criminal cases, helping the society to implement constitutional privileges and ensure the civilian liberties of people (Unnever 2004).

In the article 'I have nothing to do with Justice', James Mill talks bitterly about the distressful state of American Criminal Justice system. The author feels that only a handful of trial judges did their duties right and in limits of their powers, leaving the matters of innocence and guilt in the hands of jury. He also criticizes the Appellate Division in their negligence to hold on their powers rightfully. Indeed, the two most common criticisms of the adversary process are that it slows the wheels of justice, and that it places too little value on discovering material or actual truth.

In Mills view, the mission of the defense lawyer in the American justice system is to protect the defendant to the best of his abilities - 'getting everything he can for his client' (Mills, 2002 p. 361). In his profile of defense lawyer Martin Erdmann, James Mills declares that justice is a luxury enjoyed by the district attorney,' and that criminal justice in large cities effectively penalizes the innocent and frees the guilty (Mills, 2002 p. 361). Because of the strain enormous numbers of cases put on the legal system, prosecutors and judges endeavor to “clear the calendar” by making plea bargains with defendants, preventing trials (Mills, 2002 p. 372). This benefits the guilty, reducing sentences as extreme as murder to a year or less; for example, Erdmann convinces a man to admit to homicide for a term of five months (Mills, 2002). However, clients who maintain they are innocent or otherwise disdain plea bargaining, such as Henderson, must wait in prison for months to gain a trial, and their trial may result in a much longer sentence (Mills, 2002)

Lawyers remain as the most critical and most ...
Related Ads