Aside from the verdict from the Hinckley trial, the public’s view on the insanity defense is not altogether accurate. There’s a misconception that criminals who use this type of reasoning as a plea can evade punishment. When it comes to the use of the insanity defense, only about one percent of criminals use this type of justification. By using the insanity defense, the criminal is admitting they are guilty of the crime however they are requesting a not guilty verdict based on the state of mind they were in at the time of the crime. This can get tricky for a defendant because if not proven mentally ill, they will be found guilty and usually endure a harsher sentencing for the crime.
In fact, the state of Texas has a reputation known for enforcing the death penalty. However, in all of the years mankind knowing of such barbaric punishment, can one actually say that it is just and applied fairly? Despite the fact that the death penalty may seem like justice, the death penalty is a barbaric act that is not applied fairly and is unjust to mankind because there have been innocent people convicted of crimes that they did not commit. Certain factors such as race, location, and money play a large part on how unjust and fair the death penalty is applied. The death penalty is a barbaric action that is unjust and applied unfairly to mankind because although half of the homicide victims are people of color, more than 80 percent of the prisoners executed were convicted of killing whites.
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. In the case of O.J Simpson, he was charged with the murder of his ex-wife, Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and found liable for the wrongful deaths of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Under the criminal law, O.J Simpson pleaded 100 % not guilty for these two counts of first degree murder. During all the criminal proceedings there was plenty of evidence that pointed the finger to Simpson. In the end Simpson was acquitted for the murders of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Jury Nullification Paper Katrice Brown CJA/334 Cultural Diversity in Criminal Justice 28 July 2014 Professor S. Jury Nullification Paper “Jury nullification occurs in a trial when the jury determines verdict based on personal belief, even though the member of the jury believes the defendant to be guilty of the charges” ("Jury Nullification," 2014). Jury nullification can be very inequitable to parties involved in many court cases. It is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge’s instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. When the race of the defendant has any cause on the outcome of the juries’ decision to drop charges regardless of the amount of evidence, raced-based jury nullification becomes the case. Race-Based Jury Nullification Race-based jury nullification has been in the criminal justice system for many years.
Although our country’s legal system has evolved greatly since that time, there continues to be great debate about the issues surrounding life in prison versus the death penalty. When we look at the death penalty system in action, many argue that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge. It is seriously flawed in application and there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people. Over the years, one hundred thirty people on death row have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA evidence, available in less than ten percent of all homicides, cannot guarantee that we won’t execute innocent people (ACLUNC, 2013).
This style of narration was extremely entertaining and at times took on the feeling of a detective interviewing his suspects. Santiago Nasars’ murder being explained within the first few pages of the book initially came off as odd. However, as the narrative progressed, prior knowledge about the details of the homicide injected questions into my mind which were unorthodox to the average murder mystery. Instead of forcing readers to ponder the typical murder novel questions; “Who’s the murderer?”, “Did he/she have an accomplice?”, “How did the homicide take place?”, Chronicle of a Death Foretold states the aggressors, their weapons, and their actions leading up to the homicide, right off the bat. One might have called it a wrap after already discovering the details that make up a typical murder mystery within the first two chapters, but as the book progressed, one question that dug deeper than the plot of a normal homicide and kept my eyes peeled began to arise.
It states that no one can be held for a crime unless a grand jury has indicted him or her for the crime, which the grand jury decides whether or not there is enough evidence to take them to trial. The Fifth Amendment also states that no one can be tried more than once for the same crime, which is called double jeopardy. Double jeopardy has been known to be decisive if a person is being tried for a lesser crime. Example, a person hits someone with a cast iron skillet and wounds him or her so extremely that he or she expires. If the criminal is charged and tried for murder, but found innocent, then he or she cannot be charged with a reduced offense for the same crime, such as a serious assault.
Thesis: Wrongful convictions happen in general because ones who are innocent are the ones who are typically found guilty in their criminal trial, or sometimes a defendant might feel the need to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit in order to avoid the death penalty or facing long prison sentences. 1. The start of the Innocence Movement a. When the first DNA exoneration in the United States occurred in 1989 it showed the real truth of innocence or guilt. b.
The judges do all the gathering of evidence and questioning of the witnesses before they decide to vote guilty or not. There are defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys present at trial. Ultimately the trial is to prove ones innocence because they are automatically considered guilty in the Inquisitorial system. To us here in the United States it would be unfair to presume that someone is guilty right away. We try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are innocent and it is the burden of the state to prove they are guilty.
According to this view, if the state is allowed to kill, why is not this privilege extended to all citizens? Nevertheless, as valuable as this contention may be, what York fails to recognize is that everyone who is condemned to death has received a trial by jury and has been found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt”--the same criteria applied in the judgment of all accused persons. Sentencing someone to death, therefore, is not an arbitrary decision. It is one that is passed by a government who has promised to protect everyone who abides by the rules and codes of a moral and decent society. How can we allow a small but ever-growing percentage of the population to continually hurt others because not enough fear is instilled in these individuals--their lives are not threatened, so