Legal proceedings have been addressed with certain sensitivities because omission in the defense and presentation of evidence has resulted in injustice in many cases. Since 1963, it has been the decision of the Supreme Court that all the pieces of evidence should be presented to the courts, even if it is in favor of the defendants. The pieces of evidence outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision include all the relevant information that can change the course of a criminal proceeding even if such information can tarnish the credibility of government witnesses, state employees, and police officers.
From this court decision, it has become the responsibility of the prosecutor to evaluate not only the evidence presented by the law enforcement officers, but also the character and the reputation of the testifying officers.
Evaluation of police conduct before presentation of any pieces of evidence in a criminal proceeding is related to Giglio v. United States (1972), which was supported by several judges, including Attorney General, Janet Reno, who had established that policy in 1969 to provide the prosecutors with enough facts to conduct an investigation. As per the policy, every law enforcement officer should demonstrate good record of accomplishment in order to be featured in the prosecution’s evidence presentation list; otherwise any breached record of accomplishment can be interpreted in favor of the defense.
The issue of disclosing an officer’s untruthfulness has, therefore, generated mixed reactions from various quarters, with some opponents claiming that it favors the defense team. However, the proponents of the policy argue that if a police officer has ever engaged in untruthful incidences, there are possibilities of repeating the same in a criminal proceeding.
The arguments raised in favor of the policy are supported by the fact police officers and all other law enforcement personnel can present wrong information in a court proceeding based on the past records. The policy, therefore, ensures that the prosecutors are informed about the character and former behavior of the law enforcement officers in order to obtain all the facts and reveal the information gained to a defense team.
With such information, the defense team can reject any evidence presented by an officer with a questionable background based on the possibility of untruthfulness from the prosecution team. The conduct of a police officer has to be evaluated in order to determine whether the evidence presented can have any implication on the defense side. In case a police officer is found to have provided distorted information, then defense has the right to object to any piece of evidence presented against them since it can also be untrue.
Some of the popular cases presented, which require vetting and evaluation of police officers, involve labeling. In case police officers are found to have wrongfully labeled another individual, then such an officer cannot be allowed to testify in any case. If a police officer is found to have involved in any labeling activity, then they can be rightfully blocked from giving evidence dealing with racial disintegration, sexual harassment and other social crimes.
The labeling theory is founded mostly on crime, sexuality and race. However, crime remains the biggest aspect being related to the theory, mostly due to its prevalence in the society. Labeling theory in a racial perspective deals with the ideologies held as true by the majority pertaining to a specific race or ethnicity. The practices associated with a certain race can be identified as a part of the labeling activity since it influences the psychological interpretation and understanding of the self, among all the individuals of specific race.
The labeling theory is based on two issues, primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is defined as the process of disobeying the law and becoming non-coherent with the social and community expectations. Social theories hold that deviance and non-conformity to social issues cannot be associated with any theory or explainable circumstance. Social theories, therefore, hold that anybody is subject to making errors that can be interpreted as deviant. In this regard, primary deviance is considered as a normal part of humanity within a given society and that deviance should never be taken as a part of an individual. Labeling theory holds that primary deviance does not affect the psychological conditions of the deviant individual since temporary and other external issues can influence it.
Labeling theory, however, holds that primary deviance is subjected to majority criticism, negative attributes, and associated with the specific individual, then labeling is said to take place. The theory holds that labeling occurs once an individual is made to be a part of the deviant characteristic and activity. If an individual is apprehended because of a certain crime, the individual is likely to change based on the approaches taken by those in the society.
However, if the individual’s criminal activities are subjected to criticism and directly associated with that person, then an individual’s identity is affected (Gennaro, Maahs, & Holmes, 2006). When a subject gets the perception that a certain deviant activity and behavior is inherent to his or her character, he or she will tend to employ the deviance as a way of defense, attack or retaliation against the labeling.
In Brady v. Maryland, Brady’s Attoney was not informed by the co-defendants’ team about his confession to the killings committed. In this respect, the court held that if the information had hitherto been presented in the court proceedings, then Brady could have had a different argument in support of his innocence. The court, therefore, supported disclosing of information to the prosecution side before engaging in any other activity in order to ensure that the information is used favorably by all the parties engaged in the court proceedings. Similarly, in Giglio v. United States (1972), the court maintained that it is the obligation of the prosecution side to present to the defense the reputation and the record of the police officers witnessing in order to ascertain whether the presented information can be relied upon in the court.
An omission in law has been quite a difficult issue to argue and make rulings in law courts. It is obvious that most negligent courses of action involve failure to do something. For instance, when a motorist fails to take heed and stop at a red light, then he or she must have failed to step on the brake pedal. In law, however, this would not be treated as an omission but as one aspect of negligence on the road. When considering omission in tort law, a consideration of the defendant’s failure to protect the plaintiff from a looming risk of harm caused by him or a third party should be the guiding principle. Alternatively, Lunney and Oliphant (2008) attempt to describe omission in law as the act of making things worse than they are and the failure to improve the course of action (thus bringing liability) (Lunney & Oliphant 2008)
Looking at some arguments concerning imposing a duty of care for an omission in the context of negligence, Stovin v. Wise (1996) appears to be an important case study. Lord Hoffman in Stovin v Wise (1996) pointed out three important elements of omission, which are invasion of freedom, economic efficiency and ‘why pick one me?’ (Stanton 2006). According to Lord Hoffman, the recognized legal position is that the bystander has no duty to save the drowning child. There is something more, required for this duty (to save someone), that a bystander cannot perform (Murphy & Witting, 2007).
An additional reason is needed to explain why it is reasonably fair that a bystander should be regarded as a protector of a drowning person and have the legal obligations in this regard (Law Commission 2008). In case this additional reason exists, then there is sufficient proximity, and the bystander can be regarded as his brother’s keeper, and thus owe the drowning person some duty of care (Murphy & Witting, 2007).
In such a case, an act or omission can be considered as the act that caused harm to a drowning child. Lord Nicholls introduced the concept of ‘something more’ to the law regarding omission of the cause of harm to the plaintiff. While the question on what is the ‘something more’ has been a topic of debate, Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (1987) provides a good example of how this question can be answered in legal terms. In this case, Lord Ghoff argued that in some special circumstances, the defendant could be held responsible for the injuries on the plaintiff through an action or omission of a third party (Markesinis 2001).
Lord Ghoff argued that a duty of care might have aroused from the relationship between two or more parties, which in turn gave rise to an imposition or assumption of responsibility by or upon the defender. He gave the example of a precious case, Stansbie v Troman (1948), where the decorator left the door open when the owner was out, giving a chance for a thief to enter and steal some property. In such a case, the third party, the decorator, has the duty of care.
In this case, Lord Ghoff argued that for occupiers of adjacent land, the liability in nuisance could arise where one occupier permitted or caused the entrance of persons in his land, which resulted in some damage to the other occupiers. In fact, Lord Ghoff stated that even if such people were actually trespassers, in the defendant’s land, the occupier might have been under an assenting duty to stop or avoid the nuisance if they constituted a nuisance as per the legal terms.
In conclusion, the policy ensures that the prosecutors are informed about the character and former behavior of the law enforcement officers in order to gain the relevant evidence and reveal the information to a defense team. With such information, the defense team can reject any evidence presented by an officer accused in wrong labeling based on the possibility of untruthfulness from the prosecution team. The conduct of a police officer has to be evaluated in order to determine whether the evidence presented can have any implication on the defense side. In case a police officer is found to have offered distorted fats, then the defense team has the right to object to any evidence presented against its side since it can also be untrue.
References
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Gennaro, V.F., Maahs, J. R., & Holmes, R. M. (2006). Criminology: Theory, Research And Policy. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett.
Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972).
Law Commission. (2008). Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen Consultation Paper no. 187.
Markesinis, B. A. (2001). Negligence, nuisance and affirmative duties of action.Law Quarterly Review, vol. 105, no. 104.
Murphy, J. & Witting, C. (2007). Street on Torts. (12 ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lunney, M. & Oliphant, K. (2008). Tort Law: Text and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd, AC 241 (1987).
Stansbie v Troman, 2 KB, 48 (1948).
Stanton, M. (2006). Journey Toward Justice: Juliette Hampton Morgan And the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
Stovin v Wise, 3 WLR, 389 (1996).