Due to the amount of appeals and thorough investigation of each case, no piece of evidence is overlooked for the benefit of the defendant. Unless there is strong criminating evidence and the court is certain the accused is guilty, the death penalty would not be issued. For the 2,293,157 behind bars in our country the miniscule 3,220 on death row is unlikely to contain innocents due to their case being examined extensively. If one innocent man was wrongfully put to death by the state, should we abolish the death penalty? This argument can be compared to if a police officer shoots an innocent man, the country should purge police officers of their weapons.
An article published by the A-level law review, written by Ian Yule and entitled ‘Murder most foul?’ has two very important statements in the opening paragraph from people or groups who have first-hand knowledge of what is failing the British legal system when it comes to the decisions regarding cases of murder and voluntary manslaughter. Ken Macdonald QC, the director of public prosecutions, stated that ‘There should be degrees of homicide, not just murder and manslaughter but three or four degrees’. It is evident that our existing homicide laws are in urgent need of reform when even the Director of public prosecutions criticises them. The second is from the Law Commission itself in 2004 published a report relating to the partial defences for murder declaring ‘the present law of murder in England and Wales is a mess’ and also in the same report the Law Commission said that there was ‘a pressing need for a review of the whole law of murder rather than merely some partial defences’. The current law serves to confirm and underline how seriously flawed the present law on homicide is.
Sentencing scheme is unconstitutional b/c of overlap that inevitably tilts sentencing scales toward DP imposition 3. Permitting jury to enter sentencing hearing already across threshold of D-E entrusts determination of man’s life or death to “a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.” vii. Vague ACs: 1. Godfrey v. GA (1980, p. 147) a. Δ admitted he had been thinking about murders for 8 years & would do it again (convicted of 2 murders) b. AC: § (b)(7): outrageously or wantonly vile murder, horrible, & inhuman c. Δ’s claim: § (b)(7) is unconstitutionally vague b/c GA SC tied AC to torture, aggravated battery, or depravity of mind – none of which were found by jury d. Held: DP imposition unconstitutional b/c did not fall w/in GA’s definition of the phrase i. Court concluded that GA SC’s constitutional construction of the AC was unconstitutional b/c there was no principled way to distinguish this case from cases in which DP wasn’t imposed ii.
Mrs. Nemececk Period 5 November 5, 2011 Mock Trial In the mock trial case of Jack and Simon, each party had a decent argument and amount of evidence to prove their points. The prosecuting side provided good facts from the text of the book, though they failed to charge Roger accurately. Although the defense also came up with some good points as well, they still could not prove jack quite innocent. After a fair trial, the jury found Roger innocent from the charge of first degree murder, though the jury found Jack guilty to second degree murder. As a judge it was my responsibility to sentence each guilty individual to a necessary punishment.
News reports called White's defense the "Twinkie defense," but in reality, Twinkies were barely even mentioned at trial. White was eventually acquitted of murder, though he didn't entirely escape justice. While Hostess snack cakes were indeed part of the evidence, they weren't used in the way people think. During the trial, White's lawyers asserted their client's "diminished capacity" as a reason why Milk and Moscone's homicides technically weren't murder. Under the law, murder requires a killing to be both intentional and either planned or committed when the killer was in his right mind.
In the same year not a single Japanese child died of gunshot wounds. Great Britain had nineteen deaths, Germany fifty-seven, France one hundred nine, and Canada one hundred fifty-three. (Rubin 352.) Yes, people will continue to kill each other even if we ban guns, but all the evidence including plain common sense, says they can’t do it so efficiently and in such large numbers without the aid of a gun. Rubin is one of many that believe that guns should be made illegal, but if guns are made illegal, how is it fair to those that are safe with guns?
As Biegler interviewed Lieutenant Manion in the county jail, Manion expressed that he was a 28 year old lieutenant who served in the Korean War. He did not deny that he killed Barney Quill, but he said he did so with good reason since Quill raped his wife. Biegler addresses that there are four ways to defend murder: suicide/accidental, didn’t do it, legally justified (for protection of a home or self-defense), or the killing was excusable. This by no means was a suicide, an accident, or denying that he didn’t do it and it was not legally justified because this did not take place in his home and he had the opportunity to call the police. Instead they searched for the legal excuse which was temporary insanity.
The Victorians had always had faith in progress and they especially believed that crime could be beaten. They had evidence that the crimes were falling as the annual publication of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales proved this when it was taken in the middle of the 19th century. However it was well known that the Metropolitan Police listed many reported thefts as lost property up until the 1930’s so this means there are some serious problems with this data as it isn’t reliable. Also people in the poorer parts of the Victorian community problem never treated the police with much respect as
This reform was made because there had been many problems with the law on provocation. The defence was a common law one, created by judges hundreds of years ago. In 1957 the Homicide Act set out some of the tests for provocation, but did not give a complete definition. A main problem in provocation had been the test set out by the Homicide Act. This stated that the jury had to decide whether D was provoked to lose his self control and, if so, whether provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as D did.
He mentioned how Feinstein’s previous ban did not prevent, control or stop the Columbine School massacre. Sen. Grassley said “there is "no evidence" that the Feinstein ban would reduce multiple-victim shootings or wounds per victim.” He couldn’t have been more on point. The obvious and biggest problem of the ban assault weapon 2013 is that is violates our right to the 2nd Amendment, the right the bear arms. If this ban would be passed, it will show that in the future, it will be that much easier