Unless the government is able to prove the existence of these elements, it can't obtain a conviction in a court of law. The due process model is a model of the criminal justice system that stresses that every criminal justice conclusion is built on scrupulous information. Due process stresses the adversarial process, the rights of defendant and the rights of the formal decision-making procedure. It is vital to realize that courts allow individuals to defend themselves based on entrapment, self-defense or insanity. These, however, must be proved appropriately to allow courts practice fairness in defenses.
Self-defense seems to be the key reason for harming, or even killing another person. However, when a soldier kills an innocent civilian it is not because of self- defense. This action, then, can not be justified. There are excuses that a soldier can make towards their reason of killing a person that has not necessarily attacked them. An example of such as excuse would be that they mistakenly thought they were being attacked by a civilian.
Arguably, under the Terrorism Act it was made possible for the police to stop and search persons if there was belief that they were likely to be involved in some sort of terrorist activities. Prior to the implementation of this section, the police could only stop and search individuals if they had reasonable grounds for suspicion and certain criteria were met. This specific section of the act makes the issue of suspicion irrelevant with regards to carrying out searches. There is also the argument that the stop and search policy has led to racial profiling. In carrying out such searches, the act suggests that officers must take particular care not to discriminate against members of minority ethnic groups in the exercise of these powers.Consequently,
American Translation– This law means if you blame someone for a crime you have to arrest them, if you can’t prove they committed the crime, you will be executed. I think this law is bad because it’s wrong, If you blame someone for something and you really think they did it arrest them, yes, but if you can’t prove they committed the crime or have no evidence that they did it then set them free and try to find more evidence that the first person committed the crime, there’s no need to put a person to death because they can’t prove that someone
The primary mission of the due process model is to protect innocent people from wrongful conviction. It is doubtful that many would argue against the fact that we must engage in significant efforts to protect those who may be falsely accused. However, many argue that while the due process model focuses upon the rights of the accused it ignores the rights of victims. due process model does not limit itself to the Fourth Amendment. The police must also consider the individual rights of the accused in respect to many of the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Alexander Hamilton thought that the judiciary review was the important factor of the checks and balance system and necessary citadel for protecting the public justice. He thinks the general liberty is the most important thing when considering the constitutional framework. Hamilton disagrees with the legislative branch exceeding its power as despotism but accepts the power of jurisdiction as a way to protect people, which is the more important. However, for Chief Justice Marshall, the judicial review was not a way to protect the people. It was a tool for political movements and to gain authority of the judicial branch.
In fact, the shoot-to-kill mentality was developed due to the self defense plea, outlining the legal conditions under which one is said to have acted in self-defence and posing the question: “When can one use deadly force?” “If you feel your life is in danger, keep shooting until you feel your safety is secure” (Suzanne). Obviously, having only one account of an incident in court plays best in one’s favor. If one only shot to wound, it could be argued that one wasn’t in grave danger and/or in fear for his life, but just trying to "slow down" or "discourage" his attacker. Thus, he had no legal right to use deadly force in the first place. Shooting to kill is a way to stop the attacker without taking any chances.
The law gives citizens too much freedom when it comes to using deadly force and just isn’t descriptive enough on the fact that the point of the law should be to defend yourself. It gives people the rights to shoot first and ask questions later, and many times its hard to prove or often not proven at all that the victim was threatening the defender in the first place. Deadly force should be used as a last resort; after all other options have been exhausted. This law has caused people to act in such ways where deadly force could have been avoided. The doctrine only requires one to believe or imagine they are in danger.
George Buro 2/14/13 “The Ground Truth” Response War. What we’re told is that it’s justified killing. Is going into a foreign country, killing innocent people, destroying its infrastructure, running its resources dry, and then going on to the next country something you would classify as justifiable? If you have any of a heart in you, the right answer should be no. After watching “The Ground Truth,” one can take a lot away.
Kendo Lyn Cline 10-07-14 Dre-098 Stand your ground law promotes vigilantism and provides loopholes for murderers. The stand your ground law states that,” A person may use deadly force in self-defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat.” Stand your ground laws should be outlawed nationwide because of inability of understanding regards of the law, inability of writing effective laws, and inability of common individuals to make life and death decisions. Stand your ground laws should be outlawed because of the inability of understanding regards of the law. People seem to not understand what the word threatens really means. A simple fist fight can lead to a person being shot over absolutely nothing.