Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are prime examples of how the use of torture can become unlawful if not properly controlled. Despite the unethical and questionable methods of torturous counterinsurgency committed in the past, there are still occasions when torture could be necessary in order to achieve a specific goal. In this paper I will argue that torture can be morally justified in extreme emergencies, and only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. However, I will also argue that despite its moral permissibility, torture should not to be legalized or otherwise institutionalized. In order to fully understand why torture may be morally justifiable we must first have a firm understanding of what torture is, and how it may also be morally impermissible.
Criminal justice professionals play an important role in the court system, and if they lie on accusations and evidence, the innocent become victims of the dishonesty. A second quality that is good to see in the criminal justice professions is to be objective. It is important for our law enforcement and public servants to not let their personal goals, feelings, or prejudice to get in the way of the criminal justice goals. Objectivity ensures that the professionals will make the right choices even when they have reasons that should make them choose otherwise. A simple example of this trait could be a law enforcement officer writing a ticket to someone regardless of the relationship they may or may not have.
It is important to the criminal justice system because a client should always have adequate representation. The issues that surround attorney-client privilege also make it very important to the court system. Some of the issues that exist because of the complexity of privilege are mainly questions such as in what instances should an attorney break that privilege, what if a client admits guilt of a crime, what about a client that conveys their intent to commit a crime. Admitting guilt of a crime that has already occurred is considered privileged information, however, a client that conveys their intent to commit a crime is not covered under the attorney-client privilege. It is an attorney’s obligation, in fact, to break that attorney-client privilege in order to prevent future harm (Meyer & Grant, 2003).
Although the judiciary may understand those terms, the defendant and the jury may not which may in turn lead to uncertainty. However, some of the terms have been clarified in case law, for instance the term ‘grievous’ has been interpreted correctly as meaning ‘really serious’ in Smith and in Burstow it was decided that GBH may include psychiatric injury. This reduces the need to update the outdated language as some uncertainties regarding the meaning are dealt with in case law. Secondly, s20 and s18 contain 2 separate offences that have no connection to each other: wounding and grievous bodily harm. Wounding deals with the method of injury whereas GBH deals with the extent of injury.
When misconduct or mistakes are made it can have very damaging effects on individuals and their lives, but also to the credibility of the criminal justice system. This can happen and does on occasion (Meyer & Grant, 2003). How can we improve consistency in how prosecutors accept case work? When assessing possible improvements to the consistency of how prosecutors accept case work, there are no simple answers. Putting strict demands on what a prosecutor
‘Criminal liability based on a defendant’s omission to act is essential despite creating an uneasy balance between public policy and legal principle.’ Discuss to what extent this statement is accurate. The Actus reus of a crime is the act that results in a criminal action. Criminal liability based on Omission is when someone can be liable when the actus reus is instead when the person does not do an act and then the result is that of a criminal consequence. There are four examples of statutory duties where statute law has made it possible for criminal liability through omission. One is stopping at a red traffic light set out in the Road traffic Act 1988.
For successful conviction by prosecution, it is not sufficient to be found guilty for an act alone. The defendant’s state of mind (mens rea) is of equal importance, except in cases of strict liability. Mens rea translated literally is the guilty mind. Intention (direct and oblique), subjective recklessness, negligence and sometimes knowledge are further elements of mens rea that create different degrees of blameworthiness. This essay will attempt to establish the core characteristics the elements of mens rea, Intention (direct and oblique) and Subjective recklessness and explore the differences between these elements.
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.
Michael Lewis Short Essay #4 Preventive detention is an imprisonment that is not imposed as the punishment for a crime, but in order to prevent a person from committing a crime, if that person is deemed likely to commit a crime. But preventive has some presuppositions of the moral capacity of the offender. Preventive detention, first assumes that offenders are responsible for their actions. The offender can control their conduct in accordance with the criminal law. And secondly, preventive detention assumes that the offender is capable of moral self-governance.
The amount of damages the claimant is able to claim therefore depends on their fault. The role of fault also varies in criminal law. Fault is integral to the Actus Reus element of a crime. In order to be found guilty of a criminal offence, the defendant must commit the Actus Reus voluntarily. If the accused is not in control of his or her actions for any reason, then they cannot be said to be acting