Harry “Breaker” Harbord Morant is a well-known historical figure in the context of the end of the nineteenth century has been a horseman, poet, and drover of an Anglo-Australian origin. Due to his famous abilities as of horses suppression, Morant was nicknamed ‘Breaker’. This man became the hero for the Australian people and stays one of the British Empire history persons parts. He took an active part as an officer of the Queen’s army at the end of the nineteenth century in the Second Boer War.
He was known to accuse prisoners’ executions in Africa as well as the German missionary, Daniel Heese, who had witnessed the shootings. Here appeared the contradiction of his ways of a court-martial; his death sentence was under the supervision of Lord Kitchener who commanded at that time in South Africa and then reported to the higher authority about the cases of such hard-mouthed actions of Morant. Then he was executed for his decisions to sentence many of Boer (African) prisoners by a contingent of Cameron Highlanders. (Davey 32) The theme of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion then becomes dominant in cases of rational and competent martial-court exercises.
The article “Citizen Oversight and the Electoral Incentives of Criminal Prosecutors” by Stanford C. Gordon associated with Gregory A. Huber points out the standpoints as for the right interpreting and execution of many martial cases made now and in previous times. The article takes into consideration the convincing reality of voting in prosecution processes and their estimation as well. Affirmation or delay of the power to prosecute is an issue of opposite relations in terms of its reliability in the society or communities where the law is the highest priority.
In addition to representing the community in criminal trials and appeals, prosecutors also direct criminal investigations and arrange plea bargains with criminal defendants. While prosecutors may use their substantial discretion in these matters to pursue the public interest, there exist longstanding concerns they might abuse this authority. A prosecutor can knowingly pursue cases of questionable merit, investigating individuals who are likely innocent. (Gordon & Huber 334)
The main reason and urge to adjudge somebody guilty is using harsh and strict indicators implemented in the factors being in the favor or to the disfavor of a defendant. Various prosecutors are vested with the freedom to vote for the apparent cases of different crimes. Nowadays the publicity takes an active part by virtues of social services in maintaining suspended and strictly objective pieces of decision while providing the trials.
The story of ‘Breaker’ Morant which was adapted for the screen in 1980 contradicts the points mentioned above. While being at war it is hard to work out as well as to make out the real intentions of accused people either soldiers or those falling prisoners. Everything is inflammatory on the first side, but still, the form of the statute considers deep attitudes in carrying out this or that case. The power of straightforward commands strictly complies with the current military policy of a definite country to button up.
The notion of discipline becomes here of great and crucial importance. “The tendency of prosecutors to “go for the easy win” is sometimes unavoidable, but we demonstrate that rewarding convictions does not encourage such be-havior. Rather, it encourages prosecutors to investigate marginal cases they would otherwise drop or try blindly.” (Gordon & Huber 346)
Therefore, there must be outer bodies of surveillance as for the uncovered facts in martial courts. Such prerogative implies a more reasonable attitude towards courts from the side of the communities and society on the whole. In the case of Morant’s warrants, Lord Kitchener represented somehow an active person to anticipate the actions of Morant in terms of their imperfect investigation.
Ignoring the implications of wrongfully punishing prosecutors, it is possible to calculate the minimum sanction that will induce the prosecutor to share exculpatory evidence. If the prosecutor is risk-neutral, that sanction will just exceed the rewards of withholding evidence when doing so would be most tempting, divided by the probability of detection. (Gordon & Huber 347)
The existence of voting models is significant when accusing somebody. It will prevent the mistakes of wrong interpreting of a definite case on an impulse of prosecutor’s indifference or rage. Cases of “uninformed trials and plea bargains” are used while providing the legal process of judicial examination, and such attempts to find out the truth need the “original evidence”. (Gordon & Huber 347)
Thus, the story of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant provides an example of wrong interpreting and accusation while determining martial-court guidelines in executing death warrants. Morant was lack of some bits of advice with regards to the legal background and established and perfectly structured points of the British legal system at that time with various remarks as of the martial-court prosecutions. The destiny of this person seems to follow the logical way. The example of his trials promotes versatile discussion in the field of jurisdiction and presents a precedent for English-American Law Model in legal affairs.
Works cited
Davey, Arthur (1987). Breaker Morant and the Bushveldt Carbineers, Second series no 18, Van Riebeeck Society, Cape Town.
Gordon, Sanford C., Huber, Gregory A. Citizen Oversight and the Electoral Incentives of Criminal Prosecutors; American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 2 (2002), pp. 334-351, Midwest Political Science Association.