A prosecutor presents evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime and the defense attorney tries to prove that the defendant is not guilty. They ensure that the defendant’s side of the story is heard, counteracts overcharging by the prosecution, and to supply their client with the best defense possible including: “providing legal counsel to client, arguing for legal innocence (not necessarily factual innocence), searching out violations of the defendant’s rights, and arguing for reduced penalties in some cases” (Meyer & Grant, p. 144). A prosecutor is paid by the state and cannot be hired, like a defense attorney, by an individual. They are hired by the public to punish those who commit crimes, in order to
This created the M’Naghten rule, which held that a man is not responsible for his criminal acts, when, because of a “disease of the mind,” he does not know the “nature and quality” of his acts or does not know they are “wrong.” The courts used the M’Naghten rule for some time as the determination factor in cases where the insanity defense was their plea. Because of its broad definition and criteria, the M’Naghten rule adopted many forms over the years. Cases like Durham v. United States help the rule form the “product of mental illness” approach. The test named Durham product test created an assessment for insanity based on a substantial lack of mental capacity
In this speech I am going to tell you about the types of insanity defense that are used in court cases, the process that goes into verifying a criminals sanity, and the issues that come about after a plea is entered. Now I’m going to explain what insanity is and the different types associate with it. The insanity defense plea as defined in law journals is a defense that’s asserted by the accused in a criminal prosecution as a way to avoid liability for a commission of a crime because at the time of the crime the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts. Cognitive insanity is the most common variation of an insanity defense that goes through the court system. This is where the defendant during the time of the crime suffered from a mental disease that impaired his/her psychological ability to see the wrongfulness of the act they committed.
Also, it is important in this process to prove a person guilty by legally-found facts and evidence. However the crime control model does not protect a suspected offender’s rights as much. The crime control model is based more on helping the victim, even if defendant’s rights are compromised. This model attempts to repress crime and give expansive power to police. It looks to find guilt rather than prove innocence.
This code states that the person is capable for using this defense in the case of mental insanity if the do not have the ability to appreciate the fact that they have committed a crime and what that entails or that they are unable to conform to the moral and legal codes of society. (ALI Moral Penal Code (1962)) In regards to this case, I feel that the defendant did know what he was doing but do to the fact that he was either under the influence of the drugs at the time and dor he was mentally unstable and believed that he was saving her rather than killing her when he committed the crime. The reason that I feel that we can use this defense is the fact that the defendant ranted about aliens and the fact that he was god when the officers went to arrest him. He also kept a journal until he decided the time was right to perform the "saving" of the
Both prosecutors and law enforcement, sometimes knowingly ignore this behavior, in hopes that their testimony will secure a conviction in their favor. Law enforcement who work closely with the crime lab in their department will often try to influence Pathologists to tailor their analysis and testing of evidence to suit their needs in assurance of a solid conviction. Consequently, Pathologists are criminally mishandling and presenting false testimony of the evidence and tests. Regardless of their underpinning of excuses, we must find some means of addressing these issues on a broader scope within the criminal justice system. Dr. Ralph Erdmann is a prime example of one who would
This could be avoided if more caution was observed during the investigation process. Proper and accurate evidence should be the key to solving all investigations. An important piece of evidence is an eyewitness. Anyone can say he did it or she did it, but an eyewitness has to actually be at the scene of the crime and witness it taking place in order to stand and testify in a court of law as defined in The Oxford Dictionary.(“eyewitness”). Everyone has different features even if we are of the same race.
After medical professionals deem a person mentally ill, the court room can then proceed to conclude an insanity defense. Both understand that claiming a mental illness can be sufficient enough to somewhat relieve the burden of guilt in a court of law. The diagnosis of mental illness does not automatically deem innocence and the person usually becomes institutionalized, therefore treated, but not punished for their uncontrollable actions. In a courtroom, the idea an insanity defense created a right-wrong test which was established with the M’Naghten Rule in the case Queen v. M'Naghten (1843). This test was applied when deciding if a person, at the time of the committing of the act, was ‘laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he knew
The adversary system is a system where there are two opposing sides in a court room, the prosecution and the defense. Both sides are trying to convince an impartial person, such as a judge or jury that there side can prove the other side as being wrong in order to prove guilt or innocence of the accused offender. The reason we use this system is to provide a fair and impartial trial. Instead of just presenting the evidence against the defendant, which would be partial and one sided, since the defendant would not get to defend them self. The adversary system is a much needed way for all societies to have their judicial and criminal justice system.
Different states have different rules on when the capital punishment penalty applies and when it does not. Normally, I do not agree with applying such extreme punishment unless it can be proved without any doubt that this person who is accused is guilty. It should also be one of the heinous acts of being a serial killer or a child killer. It’s better when a true confession, with evidence to back up the confession, has been obtained. There is nothing worse than to have a doubt that the person already executed could be an innocent person.