The first issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charges of murder or manslaughter against Deft. Murder is a homicide committed with malice aforethought. Malice can be found by (1) specific intent to kill, premeditation and deliberation, (2) intent to cause grave bodily injury, (3) wanton and willful disregard for human life (“depraved heart”), or (4) felony murder. The defendant’s acts must be the actual and proximate cause of the victim’s death. Manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought.
Legal defenses can have a signification effect on disposition of the case. Factual Defense In a criminal trial when factual defense is used the defendant and attorney are claiming to the courts the defendant had nothing to do with the crime which took place. The defendant is insisting he or she is not to be held criminally liable for the charges brought forth by the state. The defendant may say he or she was in was not in the location of the crime at the time of the crime and may have an alibi as evidence (Schmalleger, Hall, Dolatowski, 2010). Legal Defense Justification and excuse is the two forms of legal defense.
2360: a. What is the correct citation for the case? 551 U.S. 205 b. What were the basic facts in this case? Bowles was convicted of Murder, and then filed his appeal according to a court ordered time-frame which was not within the statutory limits of filing an appeal.
It was proved that the defendant was guilty of rape by his dna, also the fact that he was menacing people with a shotgun, which is how the taking of the DNA came about to prove him guilty of rape. Accomplice liability does not apply to this case; accomplice liability allows the courts to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by another person. If a person aids, assist or encourages another in the commission of a crime they are an accomplice to the crime, while the person who actually commits the act is called the” principal”. However, when determining what is accomplice liability and criminal liability a court needs to examine factors and intent of both the principal and the accomplice (www.legalmatch.com). The elements of crime are a series of components that must be present in order for it to be demonstrated that someone is guilty of a crime.
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.
(mass murder, spree murder, serial murder). | Evaluate the criminal act (ie what was the modus operandi, why did he do it?) | Evaluate the specifics of the crime scene (s) | Comprehensive analysis of victim(s) | Description of Offender Characteristics | What is the primary motive for the offence? (sexual, financial, personal, mental disturbance) | What levels of risk did the victims experience? | What level of risk did the murderer take in killing the victims?
The Law can be divided into two separate categories, being criminal and civil law. The difference between the two is that criminal proceedings are separate from civil actions. The difference between the two is, in the criminal case the crime is a public wrong, punishment is either death or incarceration, the government is the prosecutor, and the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case the harm is a private wrong, instead of a criminal matters, punishment is compensation, the plaintiff is the person who suffered, and the proof is preponderance of evidence. The one thing both these laws have in common is that they both try to control the behavior by imposing sanctions on those who violate the law.
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
The key difference between these two models is that the crime control model is much more harsh and unrelenting; it emphasizes controlling crime via punishing suspects while the due process model emphasizes careful examination to ensure less innocent people are unjustly convicted. The crime control model places an emphasis on "placing as few restrictions as possible on the ability of law enforcement officers to make discretionary decisions in apprehending criminals"(Gaines). Under this model, courts would be more willing to convict offenders, even with an absence of compelling evidence. For example, a court would be more willing to accept a police officer's account of a homicide without careful cross-examination under the crime control model in order to repress crime. In contrast, the due process model emphasizes "protecting the rights of the accused through formal, legal restraints on the police, courts, and corrections" (Gaines).
Justification and excuse both play an interesting role in the criminal justice field. Justification is a legal defense used when a defendant will admit to the crime committed, but will also claim that the act was necessary and justified, to avoid something that would be worse than the initial act in question (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2009). Excuse differs because it is a legal defense that the defendant will state that some sort of personal circumstance or condition was occurring during the act, was that in nature that she or he should not be held liable for that act (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2009). In turn, justification is more of physical act, and excuse is more of the status or “mental capacity” of the individual that is committing the crime (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2009). Commonwealth v. Lorena Bobbitt In the case Commonwealth v. Lorena Bobbitt, Lorena on June 23, 1993 took a twelve inch knife and severed the penis of her husband John Bobbitt.