Are the Poor people committing more crimes than the Rich? Fact: The rich commit far more crime than the poor and evades Punishment. Most economists writings I read have a glib answer: Poor people are more often arrested and charged for committing crimes, but the fact is that the master minds under all these crimes, or the people who encourage the poor to do these crimes are often the high class people. Crime is just one of many, many "social pathologies" that are more often over-represented among the poor: alcoholism, drug abuse, obesity, illegitimacy, etc. And of course none of these are good escape routes from poverty and we all believe in the term "poverty causes crime".
Contradictory to this, a point to back up Rep 1’s accuracy is that a book (2) agrees with Rep 1 as it says how ‘If there was a fight let them get on with it’ and Rep 1 also explains how ‘in some areas they allowed fights.’ Rep 2 is definitely the least accurate out of all the Reps as there are many more points that challenge its accuracy. A very obviously exaggerated impression created by Rep 2 is that the streets were ‘quite unsafe… robbed and mobbed in broad noon day’ but a book (4) explains how ‘an MP was mugged on his way home… at night.’ However this Rep can be reinforced by a book (5)
Legal aid - A wealthy person charged with a minor offence could hire an entire legal team in his defense. A person who is less well off may not even be entitled to legal aid. The very nature of our adversarial system promotes inequality. The experience and ability of a legal team is often more important in determining the outcome of a case than the quality of the evidence, especially in jury trials. Plea - Bargaining - In a recent sexual assault case involving the gang rape of two 16-year-old girl, the DPP entered into plea bargaining with the accused.
Although our country’s legal system has evolved greatly since that time, there continues to be great debate about the issues surrounding life in prison versus the death penalty. When we look at the death penalty system in action, many argue that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge. It is seriously flawed in application and there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people. Over the years, one hundred thirty people on death row have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA evidence, available in less than ten percent of all homicides, cannot guarantee that we won’t execute innocent people (ACLUNC, 2013).
(Slobogin 1996) The study showed that good cops lie the most because they honestly believe a guilty defendant will go free. (Slobogin 1996) It is commonly referred to as the “noble lie”. (Cliffnotes 2010) The deception presented in two forms: direct untruths about something and/or omissions where case harming details are left out or forgotten. Police officers are trained on how to give testimony. They are professional, persuasive witnesses.
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
Source 46 does it by also showing that police states were powerless to act while the federal government’s authority in interstate crime enforcement was restricted. As a result of this police were investigating crimes which caused no harm to other people, rather than investigating crimes which did cause harm to others, and that meant that real criminals were more likely to go freely and avoid being bothered/arrested by the police. The fact that most of the secondary sources support this view makes me think that Law enforcement in America is a valid and trustworthy point behind the rise in crime because all but one of the sources shown suggests that it did lead to lot of crime. The odd secondary source out is 47. It explains that when John
The Mandatory Minimum sentencing laws were put into place for major and habitual drug offenders to be behind bars for years, but in essence we have been faced with unintended consequences of mandatory minimum sentences. The mandatory minimum guidelines are so outrageous, and although one should be held accountable for any illegal activity the guidelines leave no discretion for judge. Drug cases before the mandatory minimum drug law took effect; the sentencing for such crimes was nowhere near as harsh. Defendants that have been sentenced under these guidelines often have no criminal history
It states that no one can be held for a crime unless a grand jury has indicted him or her for the crime, which the grand jury decides whether or not there is enough evidence to take them to trial. The Fifth Amendment also states that no one can be tried more than once for the same crime, which is called double jeopardy. Double jeopardy has been known to be decisive if a person is being tried for a lesser crime. Example, a person hits someone with a cast iron skillet and wounds him or her so extremely that he or she expires. If the criminal is charged and tried for murder, but found innocent, then he or she cannot be charged with a reduced offense for the same crime, such as a serious assault.
Simpson’s murder trial in 1995… Not guilty and cleared of all charges! Many adults agree that the evidence pointed to Simpson, but how is it that he escaped from the legal system? Was it the fantastic lawyers, a fluke of luck, or was he genuinely innocent? In order to answer that question, we must compare this case to other cases similar to this that happened. The death of Caylee Anthony comes to mind.