Justification and excuse will be described as well as the outcome of each case. Types of Defense A defense consists of evidence and arguments offered by a defendant and his or her attorney to show why a person should not be held liable for a criminal charge. There are two types of defenses, factual and legal. Factual defense is when an individual insist he or she did not do it. Legal defenses can have a signification effect on disposition of the case.
Due process protections under the Constitution force the state to fulfill its burden of proving its case against the accused. I personally prefer the due process model rather than the crime control model, The crime control model assumes guilt by fact. The person is guilty unless proven innocent. This is one of the downfalls of the Crime Control Model. The concern with this model is a quick and speedy conviction despite the innocence of the alleged criminal.
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.
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
The judge will determine if the prosecution of defense has a stronger argument B. Defendants are released if enough evidence is not provided at preliminary hearing III. Arraignment A. Defendants are formally charged with the crime they are being held for B. The defendant enters a plea 1.
However, no matter how much of a gut feeling a law enforcement officer may have that officer cannot even legally stop a suspect. A standard of proof that has more certainty is Reasonable Suspicion. This is more than a gut feeling, it includes the ability to articulate reasons for suspicion. When an officer is an a situation that something looks out of place or wrong, that officer may stop and frisk a suspect based on this reasonable suspicion. Probable Cause, as I stated previously, is the amount of evidence present to reasonably suspect criminal activity.
Statutory Offenses The phrase of crimes are statutory offenses means that an illegal crime was committed that violated a criminal statute (Mallor, J., 2013, p.130). In order to convict a person of any wrong doing that violated a crime, the plaintiff’s lawyer has to provide evidence of the criminal act committed, demonstrate substantiated evidence that would show beyond any doubt that the defendant committed the act, and prove that the defendant was fully capable of engaging himself in the criminal act of what he/she is being accused of (Mallor, J., 2013, p. 130). Any kind wrongful behavior is not considered a crime, unless Congress or the state legislature has criminalized it (Mallor, J., 2013, p. 130). An example is, Killing vs. United States; after four months when Jeffrey Skilling’s resigned from Enron’s Corporation it went into bankruptcy (Mallor, J., 2013, p.133). A Federal Investigation was filed, uncovered an elaborate conspiracy to prop up Enron’s short-run stock prices by overstating the company’s well-being (Mallor, J., 2013, p.133).
The role of causation in the actus reus of a crime is fundamental in establishing criminal liability but it is not without it’s problems. Discuss the accuracy of this statement. The first issue to address when considering the accuracy if this statement is why the role of causation in the actus reus of a crime is fundamental in establishing criminal liability. According to current law where a consequence must be proved, the prosecution must show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, it was the legal cause of that consequence and that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation. Without evidence of each of these three principles criminal liability cannot be established.
The accused are innocent until proven guilty and cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime or crimes that he or she is being accused of. The accused have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford it one will be provided for them, they have the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to bail bond unless they are charged with murder or the court determines them a flight risk. The accused also have the right against self-incrimination meaning that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. Rule seven of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the accused must have a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the facts constituting the offense they are being charged with. The accused have the right to counsel which means that under the sixth amendment the accused has the right to representation by an attorney.
Constitutional Rights and Plea Negotiations A plea bargain is a process in which the defendant arranges a ‘deal’ with the prosecution. A plea bargain essentially means that a defendant charged with multiple crimes will plead guilty to a certain charge in order to escape going to trial for a more serious charge. In the United States, the majority of criminal cases are settled through plea bargains. Moreover, a guilty plea waives the constitutional right to trial and subordinates trial rights such as the right to confront one's accusers. Under the "doctrine of unconstitutional conditions," waivers of constitutional rights often are held invalid when they have been required as a condition for receiving favorable governmental treatment.