In this scenario, Jack is guilty for Pratt murder and attempted murder of Bert. Jack’s attorney fails to understand that jack was really determined to kill Bert. If the gun had not malfunctioned, Jack would have killed Bert on the spot. He attempted twice to kill him with no success.
What if the gun did not fail to function as expected, he would have silenced Bert for good. The plaintiff seems to have prepared to kill Mr. Bert, because the defendant discriminated his victims at the first place. He was ready to cause havoc because he took time to trying to eliminate his victim. Jack’s attorney must understand his client was armed with illegal firearm according to the federal law. Jack it guilty of first degree attempted murder and murder of Mr. Pratt as per descriptions given. Jack had committed first-degree attempted murder a criminal offence that deserved great penalty and sometime life sentence with parole (Samaha, 2002).
In this case, the court has denied Mr. Bert justice by accepting Jack’s attorney version as impossibility of the gun to fire. The court fails to understand that Jack is a criminal on the loose. If the gun had not malfunctioned, the criminal could have killed his victims without being punished. Jack with the help of his attorney he walks out of court with impunity and maybe he might have committed crimes like this or he may continue killing more. Attempted murder being a failed or aborted criminal act, the crime involves two scenarios that the judge should have taken to account. Action and the intention adds weight to this case because the criminal Mr. Jack took direct step which aim to kill his victim Mr. Bert even though his intention was not known (Acker& Malatesta, 2013). This should have convinced the judge indeed this person was ready to execute his plans even though they were aborted. The prosecutor might also slept in his/her job for failing to protect Mr. Bert because this case is criminal law. The prosecutor should have questioned the defendant why he targeted Mr. Bert not Mr. Pratt. This case seemed to have many inconveniences, which contributed to justice abortion.
In addition, the prosecution may have failed Mr. Bert, the state attorney failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused attempted to murder his victim. The other inconvenience on the case is that Jack did not deny trying to kill his victim but the court determined his case by saying the gun was malfunctioned. It is unethical for an individual to try to kill unarmed person (Acker& Malatesta, 2013). If Mr. Jack had problems with Mr. Bert, he should have sought other legal ways instead of trying to kill. He breaks ethical and moral expectations the society subscribes. If the society allows individuals to continue punishing or scaring, others without any legal interference many innocent individuals will end up to grave. Attorneys dealing with case like this they must understand that they swore to defend law and justice system when they were admitted on the bar. Justice system has failed to uphold and respect these ethical due to love for money.
Acker, J., & Malatesta, J. (2013).Introduction to law and criminal justice. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Samaha, J. (2002). Criminal law (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning