Ethics can be defined as a system of moral values that distinguish rules for behavior based on an individual’s or groups’ ideas of what is good and bad. Police ethics are the rules for behavior that guide law enforcement officials based on what society deems as right and wrong.

Ethics are actually the very foundation of the criminal justice system. They’re what helped us, as a society, develop the moral reasoning we use, define criminal activity, and deem acceptable as punishment.

Prosecutors have a huge discretional role in the criminal justice process. They have the ability to initiate and terminate all criminal prosecutions. They have to use discretion to weigh the rights of the accused, the feelings of the victim, and the capacity of prisons when determining a proper punishment.

At each stage of the criminal justice system, professionals have such discretion: legislators make decisions regarding the creation of laws, police make decisions on the street in their enforcement of those laws, prosecutors make decisions about which arrests to formally prosecute, judges make decisions about which …

As elsewhere in life, discretion is important in the criminal justice system. Discretion is also important in that it allows judges to take certain policy imperatives into consideration. In some cases, for example, it may be necessary for the courts to show leniency because the prisons are overcrowded.

Discretion and Independent Judgment

The exercise of police discretion is a decision-making process, as officers evaluate the situations in which they intervene and choose a course of action from among a set of alternatives; if their involvement is not at the request of a citizen, they also make decisions about whether to intervene.

Discretion exists when the decision maker has the power to make a choice about whether to act or not act, to approve or not approve, or to approve with conditions. The role of the decision maker is to make a judgement taking into account all relevant information. Powers to act and to exercise discretion.

Generally speaking, to exercise a discretion, a decision maker cannot just arbitrarily make a decision. A decision maker must first determine what factors they should take into account. There should then be a weighing up of those factors after applying the facts of the particular matter to them.

In public administration, administrative discretion refers to the flexible exercising of judgment and decision making allowed to public administrators. For example, a public official has administrative discretion when he or she has the freedom to make a choice among potential courses of action.

Use of discretion becomes necessary, especially in situations in which imme- diate action is needed. For the most part, frontline or street-level bureaucrats work in situations where discretion is required because the rules and laws are too complicated and may not be adequate in specific cases.

Judicial control mechanism of administrative discretion is exercised at two stages: (1) Control at the stage of delegation of discretion; (2) Control at the stage of the exercise of discretion. (1) Control at the stage of delegation of discretion.

The abuse of administrative discretion takes a number of forms for instance, acting on mala fide grounds, ignoring relevant considerations and acting on irrelevant ones, making decisions without cogent material and misconstruing the power granted by law.

2 : the quality of having or showing discernment or good judgment : the quality of being discreet : circumspection especially : cautious reserve in speech. 3 : ability to make responsible decisions.

Some common examples of abuse of discretion are:

1. Not allowing a certain witness to testify.
2. Showing bias toward the accused.
3. Making flawed rulings on evidence that stifle one side’s rights.
4. Influencing the jury to reach a certain verdict.
5. Sentences that are far too harsh for the offense.

Legal Definition of clearly erroneous : being or containing a finding of fact that is not supported by substantial or competent evidence or by reasonable inferences findings of fact… must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 52(a) — compare abuse of discretion, de novo.

In United States law, a reversible error is an error of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of a judgment on appeal. It is to be distinguished from harmless errors which do not rise to a level which brings the validity of the judgment into question and thus do not lead to a reversal upon appeal.

Clearly erroneous standard of review A finding is “clearly erroneous” when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

Harmless errors include technical errors that have no bearing on the outcome of the trial, and an error that was corrected (such as mistakenly allowing testimony to be heard, but then ordering it stricken and admonishing the jury to ignore it).

The unsuccessful party in a lawsuit who commences proceedings for appellate review of the action because a mistake or “error” has been made resulting in a judgment against him or her; an appellant. A party who sues out a writ of error, and this whether in the court below he was plaintiff or defendant.

Prejudicial error: This kind of error is a mistake about the law or court procedures that causes substantial harm to the appellant. No substantial evidence: The appellant can ask the appellate court to determine if there was no substantial evidence that reasonably supported the trial court’s decision.