With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
This is seen in the statement “… the rules of evidence are considerably more strict [than the inquisitorial system].” This shows that the evidence that will be accepted is of reasonable quality and that it will less likely be made up. The burden of proof in criminal cases lies with the prosecution. The standard that guilt must be proven is beyond reasonable doubt. This is so that there is less chance of an innocent person being convicted. The statement, “No matter how strong the prosecution’s evidence may be, if the magistrate or the jury has any reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty, the accused is entitled to be acquitted” proves that there should be no doubt when convicting a person.
However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person”. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set
United States, 1932. It states basically that a person cannot be tried for lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence in subsequent trials. A person can be tried on lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence if the crimes are tried together in one trial. This does not constitute double jeopardy because the defendant is not tried twice using the same evidence. The Blockburger test, in the Court's words is this, "The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
During the Dred Scott versus Sandford case, Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert B. Taney’s rulings were justifiable for the time being, despite the fact that many people disagreed with his decision. Taney’s decision in the Dred Scott versus Sandford case was appropriate because he had to abide by sections of the Constitution such as the first clause of the 2nd section of the Third Amendment when coming to the decision on whether Dred Scott had the right to file a suit. Taney’s obligation to abide by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment also forced him to make certain decisions within the case despite what his, or anyone else’s, feelings were. A third part of the Constitution that justified Taney’s ruling was the Property Clause in Article four of the Constitution. The Dred Scott versus Sandford case resulted in a 7-2 vote in favor of Sandford, but because of the controversy this case brought, Taney had to make sure his rulings were fit.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Given the modern day role of the Supreme Court of interpreting the constitution I can’t fully agree with Hamilton. Hamilton’s assessment is fair but the judicial branch has some power just not to the extent of material value. The judicial branch and Supreme Court has power over an abstract value we call human rights. That is why most Supreme Court cases are very important because when humans come into play cases typically become controversial and are the standard for similar cases. Miranda V. Arizona is one of the most famous Supreme Court cases that decided if one was not aware of his 5th amendment rights prior to his arrest any evidence seized before was obtained illegally.
However, there are some types of behaviours such as Strict Liability offences which do not require fault but the defendant is still prosecuted. Fault is established by a combination of Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Defences and Sentencing. The outcome of being charged with a criminal offence is based on whether the defendant is found to be at fault (guilty) as a result he is convicted and sentenced; or he is not at fault (not guilty) and is acquitted; or he is partially at fault which is where the charge is reduced to a lesser offence for example a murder charge is reduced to a manslaughter charge. Firstly, to be at fault, the defendant must have the Actus Reus of the offence he is being charged with. Generally, the Actus Reus must be voluntary and deliberate and if involuntary, he is not at fault.
The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others. Such conduct is generally deemed sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. If the facts can support such a finding, the punitive damage issue is allowed to go to the jury.' Once the question has been submitted to the jury, the generally accepted rule is that the jury, in its sole, unfettered discretion, determines whether to award punitive damages and in what amount.' "It is the long settled and uniformly adhered to rule in our jurisprudence that the amount of punitory or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury, and, no matter what the sum of their * Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School, Milwaukee, WI.