Essay Sample on Role of Officials in a Courtroom

The three officials that make up the courtroom workgroup include a judge, the prosecuting attorney, as well as the defense attorney. The prosecuting attorney is a government official that brings forwards the charges against the defendant in the courts (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2017). The prosecutor's office is an elective position where the official represents a state or a county in the proceedings of a criminal trial. This official acts as the opposition force in the proceedings of a criminal trial case. He or she stands against the defendant, as well as the defense counselor. The prosecutor stands for the victim in this case acting as the aggrieved party. The prosecution process serves to attack as well as destroy the defense's legal presentation that the defendant brings forward as claims in the criminal trial case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

These three members of the courtroom work group have unique knowledge bases, with different kinds of influence and power in the courtroom. This makes their working together vital to their final work output. These members utilize various techniques in their interactions as they are required to come up with unilateral decisions. Their working together is critical during negotiations amongst themselves in a bid to arrive at a common agreement. During the adversarial proceedings, all the three members have to interact professionally and in good faith as well as honesty to benefit from the efforts of working together. For the purpose of each individual office to exhibit relationships authority, there is a need for working together to accomplish this goal.

The three offices have varying degrees of familiarity as well as stability and in this regard, working together enhances the capability of each office operations. Working together of these three individuals enhances the close working relationship of the officers. This leads to better utilization of informal arrangements as well as promotes little or no reliance on formalities that can derail the results at the end of the prosecution. These close working relationships lead to the disposition of the caseloads in the courts, as well as the reduction of uncertainties (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2017). It enhances the successful prosecution of criminal court cases as well as bringing the court procedures to a successful close. Based on the responsibilities of the members of courtroom workgroup, the judge plays the most important role. This is because he or she is supposed to review as well as relieve the disputes that are presented in the arguments of both the defense and the prosecution. The judge is to apply the Criminal law impartially as he or she reviews the arguments and facts presented in the criminal trials.

Reply to the Substance of Classmates' Posts

My classmates' post argues that the prosecutor's position is significant in the courtroom. This is true to some extent as the prosecutor acts as the opposition force in the proceedings of a criminal trial case. This role is vital as, without a solid presentation from the prosecution, justice will not be served. However, the judge weighs both the arguments of the defense and the prosecution hence making the judge's position critical to the execution of justice.

The Purpose of Courts and why we Need Them

We need courts because they ensure that equality of individuals in a state is realized practically and not stated as empty rhetorics. The courts ensure that the human rights enshrined in the American constitution are applied in its decision dispensation as well as they are complied with as indicated in the legislation (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2017). Courts are important as they guarantee liberty in a bid to ensure order in society. The courts are critical as they enable the resolution of disputes as well as the maintenance of the rule of law. They provide equal protection of all the citizens regardless of their backgrounds in the dispensation of justice.

Courts provide an opportunity for parties in disagreements and conflicts to be heard on a neutral ground via neutral judges or juries. This ensures that the outcomes of all cases in the courts are determined in a fair and a consistent manner. Courts act as the impartial forums of the state where judges apply the law freely regardless of the wishes of the government (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2017). The courts dispense their rulings in a bid to maintain all human rights despite any contradicting public opinions. The purpose of the courts is to ensure that all criminal cases brought before them, are resolved in such a manner that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted.

Reply to the Substance of Classmates' Posts

My classmates' post states that courts are not a fair avenue for justice dispensation. They argue that judges can succumb to external forces as well as internal prejudices that can lead to biased decisions. This is true to some extent; however, special review boards have been constructed that oversee the progressive operations of the judicial system thus help to prevent cases of bias. These boards review court cases from time to time hence ensuring that the rule of law is adhered to.

References

Siegel, L. J., Schmalleger, F., & Worrall, J. L. (2017). Courts and criminal justice in America. New York: Pearson.