Willingham was given the death penalty due to evidence that was not well research. Back in the 1990’s the methods that arsonist used to get evidence was flawed. Willingham could have easily been not guilty, but due to faulty evidence he was executed. People who have been charged with murder or capital murder could have falsely been convicted of a crime that they did not do. They could have easily been convicted due to evidence that were not concrete.
It was a very unfortunate accident where everything that could go wrong went wrong and it ended up with a dead officer and a criminal that got to walk away with no punishment at all. However, in order to have a solution to this situation the police officers should have in my option the ethics of virtue. Ethics of virtue really focuses on character and doing the right thing. In saying that, if the police officers would have had ethics of virtue and been honest they would have gotten a legitimate warrant and even though it might not of saved the detectives life it would have put the drug dealer and killer in jail for a really long time and off the streets of
Firstly the penalties imposed on Loveridge from his original sentencing highlights the ineffectiveness in protecting the rights of the victims especially the deceased. The law failed Thomas Kelly and his family, as Loveridge’s original sentencing meant that Loveridge could be out of jail after serving for years for taking Thomas’s life. His family stated that the original sentencing favoured the accused stating that Thomas’s life was considered ‘meaningless’ to the state as a sentencing of four years was “a joke”. Due to the Australian public outcry and response from Thomas’s family it lead to the case being appealed by the DPP. This was necessary because the sentence was so inadequate that it needed to be changed for Thomas and his family in order to achieve justice as well as to deter acts of alcohol fuelled violence by emphasising to society that this behaviour is no longer acceptable.
Threatening to harm him or someone else is completely different from trying to prevent a bigger crime from happening by committing an act. After a 10 year period of uncertainty of trying to decide whether duress was an acceptable defence in court the house of lords finally decided that it is not the most comprehensive test of this is illustrated in the case R V Graham 1982 this suggests the test can be applied in any situation despite this being a murder case. When defendant has arisen duress. The law on this can be different as these 2 issues coming up in court can make it illegal but cannot constitute a crime due extraordinary circumstances. Some courts look at the 2 of these and merge them into one defence.
I am confident in the decision I have declared because the offenders should not have been convicted of this crime simply because there were so many loop holes in which they could have been entrapped especially, during the interview interrogation. After spending fourteen years with one of the offenders losing his life there was no facts really that led towards a factual conviction of them committing this crime. Fourteen years later one of the offenders was release and one dead while being incarcerated. The case was reopened and a new DNA test was conducted including that the strain of hair found on one of the original suspects was found to not be from the victim as originally
Derek’s family and members of the public had to fight to get a pardon, just like they had to fight to save him from capital punishment in the first place, and that had failed. It took almost 45 years. Right from the start, there was no solid case presented in court to convict Bentley. The fact that Bentley had developed epilepsy after a life threatening fall when he was 5 and was proven to have the mind of a young child, even in his late teen years, did not seem to appear in court as defence for why he should not be hanged. This is one example of the many unfair advantages that the legal system had over Bentley.
There have been murderers that admitted to murder after being pronounced innocent. In his critique of double jeopardy, John Fitzpatrick states: At present, the rule against double jeopardy or the plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict, means that nobody can be tried twice for the same offence. It is the acquittal part, of course, that is most important. In effect, the prosecution has just one go. If you are acquitted, it cannot come back for a second bite.
Evaluation Essay: Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter The law on murder has been heavily criticised the Law Commission stated that the present law on murder is a mess and in 2006 called the current law on homicide a ‘’rickety structure set upon shakey foundations.” With some rules in place since the 17th century this means that it’s very old and out of date, as it uses old terminology. Also it is said that there are too many different types of killing which come under the definition of murder. For example euthanasia is not allowed under the law meaning the defendant is guilty of murder. On the other end of the spectrum there is serial killing in which the defendant is also guilty of murder; for example the Yorkshire ripper. Glanville and Williams argued that we should adopt the American degree of murder system; this was a proposal of Lord Phillips in 2007, who is now president of the SUPREEME COURT.
Capital punishment Upon reading the essay, More Innocents Die When We Don’t Have Capital Punishment, which argues against the criterion that abolishing capital punishment saves innocent lives, I was able to successfully conclude that the argument introduced in the essay is not a valid argument. The given argument is not in logical form because the two premises, whether it is true or not, fails to support the conclusion in a manner where the conclusion can be arguable just by the two statements. For example, if Premise #2 which states, “Far more innocent people have already died because we did not execute their murderers” were true, then one would be able to logically argue that conclusion is also true. The writer also claims that murderers
Gun accidents have been declining as Wilson writes, “the rate of fatal gun accidents has been declining while the level of gun ownership has been rising” (Barnet and Bedau 126). Fewer than 2 percent of gun fatalities are caused by someone mistaking the victim for an intruder. The facts do not support the self-injury argument. Gun control advocates need to understand that they should use correct facts in their arguments if the hope to maintain credibility. People against gun control that want tougher laws on gun related violence will most likely see those added laws overlooked because the tougher laws will most likely be an add-on to current laws.