Asked if she knew what it meant to kill someone, Weier purportedly responded, “I believe it’s ending a life and I regret it.” She also reportedly told the police, “The bad part of me wanted her to die, the good part of me wanted her to live.” Geyser reportedly stated that what she did was probably wrong. Both girls believed so much in the fictional character they thought that killing their classmate would show their devotion. Many people in court asked for mental tests to be done on both girls, since they haven’t done anything wrong before, the presence of a mental issue is possible. Geyser's attorney fought for the case to be fought in juvenile court. Though their brains are still developing they are still held liable for their actions.
These defences are available only to murder. They are also only partial defences: this means that the defendant is not completely acquitted. Instead, when one of these defences is successful, the offence of murder is reduced to manslaughter. This is important because it means that the judge has discretion in the sentence which he imposes. When a person is found guilty of murder
Decision of the Court: His charge was held and he was charged for the murder of his wife. Reasoning of the Court: If the suspect could destroy the evidence then at that time and manner it is constitutional to take the sample or whatever they may need. There was no formal arrest therefore it technically could also be allowed. Under these circumstances, the police are justified in subjecting him to the very limited search and seizure to preserve the evidence they found under his fingernail. Notes * Don’t need search warrant for fingerprints, voice, handwriting * Search to take place because of probable cause, not a full search b/c not arrested.
The effective gun control measures are a boon to law-abiding citizens and reinforce the constitutional rights [Pros and Cons of Gun Control]. The only function of a gun is to kill. Legally held guns are stolen and end up in the hands of criminals, who would have greater difficulty in obtaining such weapons if firearms were less prevalent in society. Guns also end up in the hands of children, leading to tragic accidents and terrible disasters such as the Columbine High School massacre in the U.S.A. Sometimes even normal-seeming registered gun owners appear to go mad and kill, as tragically happened at Hungerford and Dunblaine in the U.K. Quite simply, guns are lethal and the fewer people have them the better.
Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized for the simple fact many would give up and take the easy way out. There is currently a pervasive assumption that if assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia (AS/VE) were to legalized, then doctors would take responsibility for making the decision that these interventions were indicated, for prescribing the medication, and (in euthanasia) for administering it .Richard Huxable remarks “that homicide law encompasses various crimes, so prosecutors can choose charges to suit the circumstances. Yet one thing is clear: mercy killing is still killing, equally, murder is murder” Physician assisted suicide is nothing more than cold blooded
Two other homicides that are not heard about all the time are “euthanasia” and “infanticide” (Davenport, 2009, p. 106). Euthanasia is heard mostly when a doctor or another helps an ill patient claim their own life. This is mostly done if an ill person thinks they have no other choice, many people are against this type of killing and consider it murder and assisted suicide. Infanticide is a hard one to hear in the news, because it is the killing of a child or newborn. These types of murders are unthinkable and many of the people who kill these children are very sick people.
I have researched a few stories behind the stand your ground law and its amazing how so many people have got away with murder. People seem to be taking what they believe to be justice in their own hands. Doing something off your own opinion isn’t always the right thing to do. You may not like people who wear red shirts. Do you think they should die?
In addition, majority of jurisdictions consider force that can lead to serious bodily harm; for example, a bloodied head, as being equivalent to the use of a deadly weapon (Siegel & Senna, 2008). Sharon was already guilty of, aggravated assault and battery when she put her husband in fear of bodily harm. In fact, the harm does not necessarily have to happen, and the fact that it did makes it even more difficult to argue against the use of a deadly weapon (Siegel & Senna, 2008). The fact that Sharon not using a deadly weapon is not true makes this argument very
Such acts are not vulnerable to guilt as one was forced to repel an attack. As a means of defending oneself, Gardner and Anderson (2011) note, the accused must prove pending danger, which he/she was unable to resist. Additionally, the accused must prove the ability to look for alternative ways of avoiding the act, unsuccessfully. Gardner and Anderson (2011) argue self-defense is relevant in defending oneself, another person and in the defense of property. For instance, if rapists stormed into a house and tried to rape the wife of an individual, the man could defend the wife by shooting them.
Finally, there are many misconceptions and injustices surrounding the defense. I think it is impossible to know exactly what someone else is really thinking or feeling and that committing a crime is wrong no matter what the perpetrator claims his or her mental state was. I do believe the insanity defense should remain in action, because mentally ill felons do require some special treatment as opposed to regular felons. It may cause a lot of problems and controversy, but at the same time it allows mentally ill individuals the option of a fair trial. If a defendant is found NGRI or “guilty but mentally ill,” I think that he or she should be placed in a mental hospital instead of being released without treatment.