The difference between the roles of the prosecutor and the defense Research Paper

The difference between the roles of the prosecutor and the defense attorney - Research Paper Example This paper is a critical evaluation of the differences between the roles of a prosecutor and those of a defense attorney in the course of administrating justice. Differences in the Roles of the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney Once a crime has been committed and brought to the attention of the prosecutor, it is his role and responsibility to ensure that justice to the victim, whether an individual or the state, is achieved by ensuring that the offender is convicted through a fair court process. To achieve this, the prosecutor embarks on a mission to create a strong case, which is free of loopholes, so as to establish whether the offender deserves to face trial or not. In this context, he has to conduct thorough investigation, which may involve questioning and securing witnesses, collecting all the incriminating evidence for example by acquiring the services of experts such as those dealing with forensics, ballistics among others, depending on the type of crime in question, so as t o support his or her case once the trial begins (Grant, 2002). This service may be provided by the investigative arm of the police, which is of high importance to the prosecutor. This is essential based on the fact that there are people in the society, who may wish to subject others to torture such that they will utilize their democratic rights to demand rogue justice through unfair means such as planting of evidence. Others may be motivated to do such things by political ambitions, whereby the prosecution may be used as a tool to discredit a person by displaying him as corrupt or inefficient. In this context, it is important to insist that a prosecutor is not always out to ensure that suspects are put to jail but also acts as an agent of truth. In fact, Rosenthal (n.d) indicates that the prosecutor has the role of ensuring that innocent people are not convicted. It is therefore the reason why he will not go ahead to prosecute a person if the evidence shows that the case is motivate d by malice. However, it is important to note that this does not imply that the prosecutor has the authority to declare one innocent as that is the prerogative of the judge, but truth be told, if the case in his hands goes to court and he does not believe in its admissibility, then, he has the powers to convince the judge by declining to persuade him to find the suspect guilty of the offences. In the US criminal justice system, the prosecutors are considered to be so powerful due to the powers vested in them, which allows prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining. This means that they can convince the defendant to plead guilty either as charged or to a charge of lesser magnitude after which he would plead with the judge for a lighter penalty than what is recommended (Fionda, 1995). This is a circumstance that has created controversy such that critics indicate the intention of proposing mandatory prosecution instead of what is currently in operation. The international criminal cou rt (ICC), for example, is mandated through the Rome statute to prosecute perpetrators of crimes against humanity, genocide, and other war crimes, which may be perpetrated by individuals or