My response to state of affairs figure four is non to bear down the aged adult male. First and first. a prosecutor’s responsibility entails finding what instances should be prosecuted. In consequence. this means. moving as a “strainer. ” This means that determinations are based on several factors such as “limited resources. trouble in enforcement. and non to advert political and public pressures” In make up one’s minding against prosecution. the undermentioned factors were taken into consideration: age. public involvement. and rehabilitation from imprisonment.
From the nature of the instance and the age of the accused. there would be small ground to incarcerate him. In add-on. looking at the factual fortunes environing the committee of the offense. there is small ground to make so. The fact that he instantly turned himself in shows his apprehension of right and incorrect. in the same breath doing a pick to perpetrate such incorrect to liberate his married woman from her disease. Furthermore. I took media attending in consideration. Bing published on the front page of a newspaper indicates a high populace in the instance. which is the really footing for ordaining Torahs.
The article will arouse two sorts of reaction from the populace. The first reaction is negative in that people would differ to the act of stoping his wife’s life. but the other reaction could be an spring of understanding for an aged adult male who merely wanted his wife’s agony to stop. To cite the assigned text. “in some state of affairss. prosecuting officers do non bear down because of an spring of public understanding or support for the accused. possibly because of the type of offense or individuality of the victim.
” Furthermore. based on a survey that looks at the prosecuting officer as “operating in an exchange system” . whether between the prosecuting officer and constabulary officers or the tribunals. in which instance considerations may include gaol overcrowding and docket backlog. a prosecuting officer would believe twice whether or non charges should be pressed. On the footing of the above grounds. taxpayers’ money would be better spent prosecuting persons whose malicious or negligent actions have caused hurting and agony to the victims and their households.