Scenario One: Can Ken be convicted of a homicide offense? Explain and justify your answer. Ken can be convicted for a couple different homicide charges in this case and in this paragraph. One of the homicide offenses they can be charged with is reckless homicide code 0142 this would be the charge if Ken had accidentally disclosed the information. Another charge that Ken can be tagged with is first degree homicide code 0110 if it is found that Ken willfully and premeditated doing it.
After the questioner the police officer will have to build a case with the evidences gathered and send a case with the evidences to CPS (Crown Prosecution Services). Then CPS could state whether it’s enough evidences gathered to take the person to court or it can state that there is not enough evidences. That where it comes to the bail. (www.findlaw.co.uk) The bail can be granted or denied it all depends what is the offence and whether the person can be dangerous if goes back to the society/community. If the person is arrested on suspicious of the murder that would be clearly obvious that the person wouldn’t get the bail, as that person could try to run away also could attempt more murders or even self-harmed.
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
An eyewitness is an individual who was present during an event and is called by a party in a lawsuit to testify as to what he or she observed. Eyewitnesses cannot be intoxicated or insane at the time of the controverted event occurred will be prevented from testifying, regardless of whether he or she was the only eyewitness to the occurrence. Recent DNA exoneration cases have corroborated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness misidentification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people, especially those who are in death row. There have been many wrongful deaths because of misidentification testimonies and men/women have lost many years in prison due to eyewitnesses misidentifying them. How can the government assure us that they found a better way of sentencing the right people and not making mistakes?
Sparing the innocent victims who would be spared, ex hypothesi, by the nonexecution of murderers would be more important to me than the execution, however just, of murderers. But although there is a lively discussion of the subject, no serious evidence exists to support the hypothesis that executions produce a higher murder rate. Cf. Phillips, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: New Evidence on an Old Controversy, 86 AM. J. SOC.
Week 6 Check Point: Mind Over Matter By Mary Setzer The difference between mental illness and insanity is that insanity is a more severe form of mental illness where a person fails to realize what is real and what is fantasy. The M'Naghten rule can't be used to defend the actions of someone who drinks alcohol because drinking is a voluntary act. Had the person not had alcohol, they would not have committed a crime. If someone receives a rational and guilty verdict after committing a crime, it means that the person convicted knew what they were doing and aware of the consequences. A guilty but insane verdict means that the person convicted was insane to have killed someone (for example) but realizes what they have done is wrong.
Therefore, the executive, legislative, and judicial branch will enforce S.397 to protect firearm industries and our legal system from those attempting to hold them accountable for their criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms or ammunition products. Many people that are injured by firearms or use certain types of ammunition will not be able to hold makers or sellers responsible for the user’s accident or act that resulted in an injury or death. Many lawsuits that were brought to court before the PLCAA were majority criminal cases which resulted with dismissals because the courts believed that manufacturers should be held liable for the acts of criminal cases. Some difficulties or loopholes that can possibly prevent the PLCAA from being enforced is if a consumer or victim claims that the firearm product could have prevented an injury or death if it had specific safety regulations such as:
Why did Brooks knowingly lie about what Spradley said? “She had been beaten, and one of her eyes was bloodshot and swollen” (“Justia US Law, 2011) when she came into the police station earlier that year. Brooks may have thought that by making those false statements, it would give justice to what had happened to her, even though he may have been innocent of the charges currently filed against him. The third and final context to consider is criminal justice. This view is that sometimes the criminal justice system fails and non-law-abiding citizens get away with certain acts.
Their condition might take an unexpected turn; or they might change their mind about a treatment; or a treatment might have disappointing effects. In these and similar cases, withdrawal of a treatment after trying it will be acceptable legally and ethically. If the team believes that a treatment could do some good, it would be unacceptable not to commence it on the basis of a false fear that it would not be possible to stop the treatment. Special legal procedures are associated with decisions relating to patients in a persistent vegetative state (BMA 2007). Intention Charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter require an intention to kill or harm on the part of the accused.
Should one subsequently face legal execution, the method may vary in dignity. Whilst an American death-row inmate likely faces lethal injection conducted in private (Death Penalty Information Center), his Saudi Arabian counterpart faces public beheading (National Post, 2013). The risk of violating the right to life by incorrect verdicts, in conjunction with unproportional costs and failure to deter, makes Capital Punishment highly questionable. “Innocent until proven guilty”, the same legal and moral principles should indeed apply for “Innocent until proven guilty, innocent if proven non-guilty following false verdict”. Many, if not all, would agree.