Defenses and Due Process Kylee Rivers CJS/220 Defenses and Due Process According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), an individual is only charged for a crime he/she committed intentionally. He suggests that such a crime must be without defense so that an individual is declared guilty. Defenses are situations that can stop or lessen the guilt in a case. Presentations of evidence for such situations ensure an accused person is defended from guilt. According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), the common elements of defense include insanity, entrapment and self-defense.
In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
Within the due process one may not be treated cruel, unfair or be given unreasonable treatment. Every accused person is entitled to fair procedures, and the due process applies to the criminal justice system as the trials, parole hearings, and administrative hearings. Due process main goal is to protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted but may be looked upon as focusing on the rights of the accused and ignoring the rights of the victims. Crime control model is taken back a little and is the complete opposite of Due Process Model, which the crime control model focuses on the initial arrest, prosecution, and the conviction of a criminal. Due process priorities stand with protecting an
The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy. Whether Armington is guilty or not guilty in the criminal trial Jennings can bring a civil suit against Armington to recover damages. Jennings was injured during the crime so he has the right to pursue a civil case to cover his injury. References Lectlaw.com (1995-2012). Double Jeopardy.
This inflexibility prevents the court from taking into account motive or circumstances, both of which can make a significant difference to the way in which society would view the individual offence. In R.v.Lichniak (2002) the defendants argued that the life sentence was disproportionate to the offence, in breach of article 3 of the European convention of the European Convention of Human Rights, an arbitrary, in breach of Article 5 of the convention. These arguments were rejected by the House of Lords. A further Criticism of Murder is that of the actual definition
Using this analogy of the criminal or civil court makes it easy to understand that philosophical arguments are not meant to become court room brawls. Respectful demeanor is expected of all those involved and at all times. Intimidation or threats of physical force are out of the question in these circumstances. Even though emotional investments on the sides may be strong to let emotion over come reason would not work in one’s favor. Contempt of court would be a judgment made of any violation of the court’s rules and
The consensus is that the punishment should fit the crime, but never exceed it. Punishment philosophies address the courts’ responsibility in ordering sanctions as well as the methods by which these sanctions are administered. According to Meyer and Grant (2003), the four punishment philosophies are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. Recently, the concept of punishment was that of deterrence (stopping crimes, and teaching about consequences) and rehabilitation (changing a criminal’s behavior); however, the focus, now, is on incapacitation (confinement to prevent future crimes) and retribution (punishing an illegal act). In the end, however, all or none of the preceding theories may aid in the fifth possible philosophy, restoration (making the victim
The author emphasises the complexities of dealing with the aftermath of domestic and family violence. She cautions that not enough has been done to protect the victims and carers once court orders have been handed down. The article also contributes to the debate on the merits and flaws of the current system. Alexander makes the assumption that while there have been positive amendments to the FLA, in some areas there have been less positive changes. Her concern is that the gap between theory and practice of the law is widening and that specialised professionals should be utilised by courts to help the judges make more informed decisions.
In order to conduct a consent search, the law enforment offical's must have the permission of the person whose property is being searched, by granting consent the defendant waivies his or her Fourth Amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. In other words when the defendant gives his or her permission to the police to enter and search, than no search warrant is required. In most cases, the person may refuse to give consent; however, the law enforcement agent does not have to tell the person that consent is voluntary. Should any of the evidence obtained result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary and the person granting consent was not coerced. In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent.
I (1) In an ideal world of forensic science, human psychology, bias and subjectivity would not be issues of concern for analysts investigating crimes. As things are, however, the presence of the human element in forensic analysis can often introduce certain impediments to the integrity of an investigation, as well as raise questions as to the reliability of certain laboratory findings pertaining to crime cases as they are presented in the court of law. The “Context Effect” article discusses several such hindering psychological effects. The observer/context effect is one such perceptive error described as the context of a given situation having an effect on a person’s judgment in looking at the case. The observer effect ties in closely with context bias – in which an observer’s preconceived notions about a case will have an effect on its conclusion – and with the concept of expectancy.