Is it clear why the prosecutor has so much say in the case?

Scholars have referred to the prosecutorial function as one of the major problems in the criminal justice system, and prosecutors have long been the target of criticism for their wide discretion. However, discussions on prosecutorial authority have evolved in recent years. In addition, "progressive prosecutors" are seen as a possible key instrument for reforming the criminal justice system by activists.

The excessive authority of prosecutors is a major flaw in our criminal justice system. Decisions on charges and plea bargains are frequently made in private, out of the public eye. This can result in unfair treatment of defendants and the withholding of potentially exonerating evidence.

To exercise this authority, the court may choose to drop charges, decrease charges, or negotiate plea bargains with defendants. The prosecutor may lower the accusation to manslaughter or drop it entirely if he determines that the victim acted in self-defense.

However, prosecutors also have the right to set priorities, so they aren't completely without constraints. Prosecutors must consider seventeen different variables while selecting which charges to bring. Prosecutors can also prioritize cases depending on the nature of the offense, the available sentence options, or the labels assigned by law. For instance, a prosecutor's office in Virginia recently instituted a new regulation mandating the prioritization of cases in response to pressure from a scarcity of resources.

Relationships between prosecutors and police unions can be tense. Relationships are more distant in significant cities. There may be a personal connection between the police officer and the prosecutor in smaller areas. Prosecutors frequently exercise their own judgment when determining whether or not to pursue criminal charges. The prosecutor is in jeopardy here.

Before reaching a verdict, South African prosecutors must consider two key considerations. Before everything else, they need to think about the greater good. That is to say, they have to weigh the benefits of the prosecution to the victim and the community. There's also the offender's background and the crime itself. Prosecutors must make decisions in good faith and without bias.

An unbiased appearance and lack of prejudice are essential for a prosecutor to earn the public's trust, which is essential for the success of their job. Fewer than two-thirds of respondents to a recent survey have faith in the legal system's ability to prosecute police-involved individuals fairly. In addition, police personnel seldom take action to remove the prosecutor from the case.

There are many different forms of conflicts of interest that attorneys and police officers may confront. Therefore, some prosecutors may have a preconceived bias in favor of the police. Disputes like this one often raise concerns about police brutality and crime. The local adversarial judicial system has also been the subject of criticism. Local prosecutors' questionable position in prosecuting police enforcement suspects has been the subject of several scholarly comments.

To avoid wrongdoing, prosecutors and law enforcement must coordinate their efforts. The professional judgment of both police and prosecutors must be respected, yet their motivations are often in tension with constitutional values. Working together is essential for a successful conviction.