Ethical Violations in Criminal Justice

Ethical Violations in Criminal Justice






Ethics refers to the study of principles relating to right and wrong standards that govern a professional’s conduct. When moral rights are violated, they are disregarded and the irony of what is expected of the conventional practices manifest.

These violations are handled and dealt with by the criminal justice which can better be described as a group of agencies and processes that seek to curb crime and impose penalties for the commission of crimes.

One of the most frequent violations at current state is where the practice of authoritarian regimes are still upheld in countries where absolute rulers do not take into consideration the sentimental value of the power given to them by their subjects who elected them into power. For example, North Korea under the dictatorial leadership of president King Jong-Il, Saudi Arabia under the direction of president King Abdullah and one of Africa’s known Zimbabwe under the rule of President Robert Mugabe just to cite a few have violated the practice of Anarchy where the society is without an authoritative governing body.

A relevant crisis of the same pact that has caused a bizarre that has recently caught the attention of tabloid heads and members of the press. In particular, there is the current contingency that has caused a significant buzz on whether Kenya, anarchy could have two presidents given the alleged conspiracy of the opposition leader, Raila Odinga swearing himself as the country’s president.

The criminal justice body relies on three significant entities them being: the judicial system, the Law Enforcement, and the Correction system. An act of impersonation of oneself as president can be classified under the Law Enforcement entity since it is valued as the attempt of overruling the government.

Nevertheless, in a country where democracy is a matter of high consideration, one is allowed to petition if they are dissatisfied with the results of a ruling government. In this perspective, citing an example of Kenya’s Opposition leader who nonchalantly disregarded defeat on the elections that were held and went on to petition for re-election which he ironically lost again and deluded the exercise as a sham.

Nonetheless, it is a matter of concern to note that the citizens seem to concur with his bold and brave move given some of them were displeased with the malpractices that were employed during the election period. In determining the next president condemning the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) for failing to meet its objectives of ensuring that the elections would be free and fair in about whoever the people choose to represent them as their next Head of State after the much anticipated national elections..

However much it may be argued that the action imposed by the Opposition leader to impart justice on the issue, and measurable penalties are applicable where due one may consider relating the matter to an act of upholding democracy.

Taking into consideration the laid arguments by the Opposition party, which apparently claims that the computers and devices used during the voting process may have been corrupted and thus led to the false emission of the streamed results from polling stations across different parts of the country where the elections were ongoing as scheduled.

The opposition argued that the Heads in charge of the exercise were bribed into ensuring latter, in this case, the Proposition party won the elections and viewed it that the Opposition party lost the elections.

The Opposition also argued that their opponents, over the previous years used the same methods to nullify their victory over them, hence they would not sit back and see the same scenario recap itself affirmatively speaking saying that Kenya is a democratic country in which its citizens deserve to be treated with respect on choices they make in choosing their democrats.

They furthermore said that they would do whatever it takes in ensuring justice is served and by this went on to Swear in their Opposition leader Raila Odinga as the president. This happened because the election body had once again pronounced the Proposition leader Uhuru Kenyatta as the winner of the re-held presidential elections and head of state at the time.

One of the significant mass influences are the Media group that are majorly concerned in airing issues in a democratic polity; this is through ensuring complete transparency and accountability by raising and updating the public through public forum discussions.

This may be done either through featuring issues in news coverage and newspapers with determined consistency.

This is necessary to help in re-enforcement of the criminal justice system by reaching opinions of the public domain in the attempt to get their views aired on the fair punitive policies that should be exercised an act of democracy through public policymaking.

Nevertheless, the public is essential targets since they play a significant role in the criminal justice system given that their views are highly one of the most critical assets in ensuring that their perceptions are emulated in giving a fair trial and verdict on an issue affecting the public and state in general. Ruling. They also play a crucial part of pre-determining their reactions in case the imposed judgment does not meet their expectations since they may react in support of the verdict or seem aggravated.

Regarding the outlined defenses by the Opposition, one may view it as an act that is highly commendable since they valued the importance and responded accordingly to their desperation on how much they detested what had come to happen. The opposition acted as the sanctuary by providing consolation that they would see to it that justice is upheld. Ensuring that an act dissimilar to working alongside democratic stipulations does not repeat itself and citing their actions as the warning to the leaders who maneuvered their ways in obtaining their leadership positions.

Since the Oppositions move was an act deemed to support the public by soliciting for overruling the current government, it is considered as a strong move to garner the support needed to come to their aid in assuring that the exercise was done to completion. Also since no violation of the public was done, either by using forceful means, or any other method hence upholding each one’s rights it is regarded an ethical way of calling for justice. Without infringements of anyone’s rights.

The breach came as an aspect of greed by the leaders in accepting bribe hence disregarding their vows and oath to serve impartially. Such incidents may be avoided by ensuring that relevant exercises in determining the leaders of sensitive departments such as presidential elections, should be done with complete scrutiny and awareness that there are frauds who only want to satisfy their wants. Also such characters should be tried and punished accordingly for having violated such offences to act as examples to whoever may want to try the same malpractices. The criminal justice system should also make amends with both sides; the Opposition and Proposition parties. This would ensure that each accepts the outcome of the results they deserve as an important choice of the people on whoever they deem perfect.


Kleinig, J. (2008). Cambridge University Press.

Souryal, S. S. (2010). Routledge.

Turvey, B. E., & Crowder, S. (2013). Academic Press.

Place an Order

Plagiarism Free!

Scroll to Top