What is critical thinking? It is the ability to think rationally and clearly, un

WRITE MY ESSAY

What is critical thinking? It is the ability to think rationally and clearly, understanding the logical connection between concepts and ideas. It requires you to be an active learner rather than just a passive recipient of knowledge and information. Critical thinking is a way of thinking about specific things at a specific time. It is not just the accumulation and recollection of facts that you can use in the same format down the line as you would with a grammar or multiplication table learned in elementary school. Critical thinking is an adaptive skillset that helps enable a way of thinking about whatever the issue/argument is so that you can arrive at the best possible conclusion/solution.
TASK:
You are required to write an original post of at least 250 words showing your critical analysis of the problem or issue presented. This is free writing, but your writing must be professional, and you are still required to properly use and cite at least 2 external sources in APA format and style (the textbook may count as one external source). After all, you cannot truly think critically without understanding the issue, and you cannot understand the issue without first gathering (accurate) information about it. Additionally, you are required to respond to at least 1 other student’s “mini” by providing constructive feedback in a respectful and professional manner.
Helpful Resources:APA formatting – for more information on how to use and properly cite in APA formatting, please use the following resources:APA: The BasicsLinks to an external site.– VIDEO
Purdue University APA GuidelinesLinks to an external site.
Why is it important to learn how to write in APA formatting?“What is the Purpose of APA Formatting in College Writing?”Links to an external site.
The Classroom – “Why Use APA Formatting in College Writing?”Links to an external site.
Remember, this won’t be the last time you will have to write in APA formatting. This is just the best time to learn and ask questions so you can be successful in your future courses and your overall academic journey.
ASSIGNMENT TOPIC: A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY
Read the following scenario carefully:
Sheryl Tucker twirled her hair between her fingers as she contemplated the keyboard. The Word document on her computer screen was a letter she had written to the chief of police and sheriff in the small southern jurisdiction in which she was the elected district attorney. Generally, she had a pretty easy life, as normally, there were no major cases that came across her desk other than the rare domestic homicide. Of smaller crimes, her county saw the standard assortment of assaults, burglaries, DWIs, and others that were usually plea bargained rather than taken to trial. Still, she had five prosecutors working under her, and the court was fairly active in the ordinary course of the week.
Today, however, her task was not ordinary, and she was trying to figure out how to navigate the waters of small-town politics and the law. Recently, a sheriff’s deputy and a city police officer had both been fired for lying. The sheriff’s deputy had lied on his job application about a prior arrest a dozen years before, and the city police officer had lied to the chief about a use-of-force incident that, unfortunately for him, had been captured on his dashboard camera. Both officers took their cases to arbitration as was their right, and in both cases, the arbitrator ruled that firing was too harsh a punishment, ordering that the officers be reinstated. She knew of these incidents because, in a town this size, everyone knew everything about everyone who was associated with the courthouse. The gossip mill was more effective than Access Hollywood in getting the news out, and the cases had been reported in the newspaper as well.
The letter on her screen informed the two law enforcement agencies that she no longer could or would prosecute any case for which either officer would have to testify as a witness for the prosecution. She explained that according to the Brady v. Maryland case, prosecutors are obligated to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense when asked and that evidence of officer-witness credibility would be subject to a Brady motion. Defense attorneys could always say that the officer was lying on the stand because he had lied in the past. She saw no way that the officers could ever be testifying witnesses for her again, regardless of the case or their role. Yet she knew that the chief and sheriff would be stuck between a rock and a hard place because their budgets did not allow them to keep an officer to open doors or answer phones; they probably needed these guys out on the street. Still, she was bound by the law and her conscience; she knew that these two officers, because of their actions, were worthless to her as prosecution witnesses.
As she expected, the letter set off a whirlwind of consternation and anger. The sheriff put his deputy on suspension again and was trying to find a way to appeal the arbitration decision. In the meantime, the lawyer for the deputy was telling the press that he was going to sue Sheryl for interference with the contract and that she had no right to tell the sheriff that the deputy couldn’t testify, which was basically part of his job. “She doesn’t know how juries would react,” he said. “Her speculation is putting a man’s career in jeopardy.” The police chief basically said that he couldn’t afford to bench the officer and that he was still on patrol.
As luck would have it, the city police officer in question pulled over a man who was driving above the speed limit through the area on the interstate. The man consented to a search of his car, and the officer found drugs and drug paraphernalia in the pocket of a jacket on the back seat. The man was charged with possession with intent to sell because of the amount, and he was facing some pretty substantial prison time, so he wouldn’t plead, even for reduced prison time. His lawyer, who was from another town, had been in Sheryl’s office several times and made it clear he thought that he was above the caliber of the prosecutors he would be facing if the case went to trial. She knew the case hinged on the consent. The officer said the man consented to the search, and now the guy is saying he didn’t consent. If it were any other officer, Sheryl would have no problem taking the case to trial, knowing she’d get a conviction. Juries are almost always going to believe officers over drug-carrying defendants. The problem was that Sheryl had said she was not going to use this officer as a witness. If he couldn’t testify, she basically had no case.
There was another wrinkle in the case. Because the defense lawyer was from out of town, he was unaware of the officer’s past. Also, because he wasn’t quite as smart as he thought he was, he forgot to file a Brady motion, meaning that he didn’t ask for exculpatory information. Arguably, Sheryl was legally obligated to give him something only when he asked for it. Legally, she might be okay with keeping the information about the officer from the attorney. Ethically, she knew she probably ought to at least share it with him, if not drop the case entirely. On the other hand, she was only speculating that juries would not believe the officer because of his history—or they might not even care if he was lying since drugs were found. Sheryl also wondered how she would be perceived if she backtracked on what she had said in the letter and now decided to use the officer as a witness. Time was running out for her to decide; the trial was scheduled to begin, and she needed to submit the witness list.
Commentary: Nowhere is the old saying, “all politics are local,” truer than in small towns and cities. Lying and misrepresenting one’s credentials are viewed very negatively by law enforcement agencies, rendering a given officer ineffective and untrustworthy. In this case, the district attorney can legally keep certain information to herself that, ethically speaking, she should probably share with the defense attorney.
THE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ANSWER IN YOUR “MINI”:
What is the prosecutor’s role in the criminal justice system?
Should you go to trial using the officer as a witness? If so, should you turn over the information about the officers to the defense attorney?
How do you think you will be perceived if you drop the case? How will you be perceived if you do use the officer as a witness?

WRITE MY ESSAY