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.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
The Due Process Model is a process that works on the assumption that the criminal justice system has errors, and because of those errors a defendant is not guilty until proven otherwise. The Due Process Model allows for a defendant to bring about any claims in their
The U.S. Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, which declare certain acts to be illegal after the behavior occurs. The Constitution also requires that criminal laws be written in precise terms so that a citizen can determine * No crime without a criminal act * In American criminal justice, the government punishes people for what they do rather than for what they think or say. The First Amendment protects an individual's freedom of thought and speech. The failure to act, however, can be a crime in situations in which an individual has a legal responsibility to do something. Tax laws and child‐neglect laws are two examples.
Criminal Procedure Policy Paper CJA/ 364 Criminal Procedure May 29, 2012 Criminal Procedure Policy Paper The role the criminal justice system plays in society is expansive. Criminal justice is designed to keep the public safe, to stop wrongdoing, to punish wrongdoers, and to provide order to society. Given this broad role there will be times when criminal justice will not perform all roles well. This means, of course, that criminal justice will often fail to meet public expectations. Ultimately, the needs people have for criminal justice mean that they believe the criminal justice system should be designed to pursue goals that fulfill
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.
Discuss whether the current law relating to attempted crimes strikes the right balance between protecting society and those who deserve to be punished. The definition of attempts is now defined by s1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 'a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence'. As with all offences the prosecution must prove the AR and the MR. The AR for attempts is when a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence (AG's Ref 1993). Before the 1981 Act the courts used several tests to decide whether D had done enough towards the commission of the offence to satisfy the AR.
One of the features the Crime Control Model considers to be most important is the prevention of crime. While this model proclaims it is permissible to make mistakes in the entire criminal justice system, it assumes guilt by fact and the person is guilt 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. Many wrongful convictions have been overturned because of the proponents of the Crime Control
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
After all, it is he or she whose alleged conduct is under scrutiny by the court, and who is facing the possibility of punishment, including in some cases, the loss of liberty. Because conviction can carry such serious consequences, most commentators agree that it is more important to avoid the wrongful conviction of the innocent than the wrongful acquittal of the guilty. The need to avoid wrongful convictions requires the criminal justice system to assume that the accused is innocent until found guilty, and to