A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. It would mean that the family members of the victim could then end all sadness of the crime committed and try to forget about it as best they can and know that justice has been served to the defendant. If it wasn’t for the various types of punishment there wouldn’t be a way to deter people from committing crime. The death penalty creates another form of crime deterrent. Prison time is an effective deterrent to a point, with some people more time is needed.
Reaction for The brain on trial Jingyi wang In this article,David Eagleman showed us that how the foundations of our criminal-justice system are beginning to crumble and he argues that a “forward-thinking legal system” will respond to neuroscience’s increasing capacity to demonstrate the illusory nature of free will by developing “customized rehabilitation” for criminal behavior.In additon,he thought that we should redesign our legal system to reflect how much we know about the brain.After reading this article,i agree with a lot of what he argued,but sometimes we just can't make things too extreme. He uses several cases that shows the criminals were found to have brain abnormalities to support his idea. As the first example he used at the begining of this article, Eagleman points to Charles Whitman, a 25-year-old who in 1966 took the lives of innocent strangers from the University of Texas Tower in Austin, as well as those of his wife and mother. An autopsy of Whitman’s brain revealed a tumor, which, according to Eagleman, accounted for Whitman’s self-reported experience of being “a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.” He argues that Whitman’s tumor was compressing the amygdala, a region of the brain known to be involved in fear and anger, and suggests that this tumor was principally responsible for Whitman’s homicidal actions.This made me pretty curious.After searching some information about this, i found that the damage or pressure to the amygdala won't directly cause a human being aggresive.This case is not strong enough to support his arguments. Eagleman urges to drop assessment of blameworthiness, or intent altogether, and instead look to the future, at reducing recidivism.
OBJECTIVE This study will examine the Massachusetts rearrest rates of nonviolent drug offenders treated in Drug Treatment Courts (DTC) in contrast to offenders sent to incarceration. DTCs provide an effective way to break the cycle of drug use and its resulting criminal behavior. DTCs use judicial monitoring, supervision, drug testing and education to rehabilitate the offenders. These programs often defer or suspend sentences in exchange for successful completion of the treatment program. If the offender does not complete the treatment, the initial sentence of incarceration is enforced (Gottfredson, 2003).
He starts his essay with a knowledge on the puritans justice system, and how they dealt with criminals back in the old days. By starting off so clearly on what he firmly believes in, it gives us a better understanding of what to look forward for in his essay that might support his thesis. He gives some examples of punishments that were popular over 150 years ago. Jacoby mentions about how puritans pierced tongues with a hot iron and whipping as a form of punishment. After that he talks about how now we practice a more humane way of disciplining criminals and convicts.
If Barbie does not die Ken can still be hit with a charge for disclosing the fact that he had aids. Ken would probably get hit with intentional transmission which is when you fail to inform your partner that you don't have aids. Theres is also a possibility that Ken wont get charged because the laws are still very blurry when it comes to the transmission of aids. What is Homicide? Homicide is murder but not all homicides are illegal some are considered justified homicide an example of justified homicide is when its done as an act of self defense.
The conviction was overturned due to allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods. After a retrial that included witnesses and other evidence, Miranda was again convicted. His trial was, however, then assured of being fair, and the original conviction was reasonably upheld without question.”(History of Miranda Warning) Due to the case of Miranda v. Arizona all police agencies in America present Miranda Rights to people when they are being arrested. In the case Miranda’s lawyer states that Miranda was not presented with his rights, he didn’t know what he was being arrested for. Now all police agencies present Miranda Rights to people who are being arrested so that the person in custody can know what their rights are.
The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Offence Case Management) Act (NSW) was introduced in 2005 which updated the previous act the previous act, The Criminals Procedure Act from 1986 (NSW). The amendment changes how sexual assault cases are managed and is designed to minimize the stress and trauma on complainants giving evidence, who now don’t have to prepare themselves to give evidence every time a trial is scheduled and rescheduled. This reform has come about due to this issue becoming more apparent in society and as we have more understanding about sexual assault than we did in 1986. Other acts that have been modified due to law reform in the area of sexual assault include the • Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Act 2005 (NSW), amending the past Criminal Procedure Act of 1986 (NSW). • Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Act 2005 (NSW) • And the Crimes Amendment (consent-sexual assault offences) Act 2007 (NSW) These legislation change the way we deal with matters of serious sexual assaults, which has largely been brought upon by a change in social attitudes regarding sexual crimes and this will without a doubt will lead to future court decisions rethinking the law in a way that leads to further law reform as well as have a more impact on justice for all involved.
It protects individual against a second prosecution for the same crime, it also protects us multiple punishments by same crime. There should be some edits should be done to the fifth amendment, because I feel that an individual should be able to put to trail second time, just by using the new evidence. On the other hand the double jeopardy save individual from the law enforcement abusing the power to violated the citizen’s rights. Reference Beazer, M. (2011). Make Sure That Justice Is Not Put In Jeopardy.
Sentencing Paper Billy Kinkade University of Phoenix CJA/234 Christine Cavalin 08/05/2011 Sentencing Paper According to Lawlink, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation are the primary objectives of sentencing in the US penal system (2003). Deterrence refers to the need to deter prospective criminals from committing crimes in the first place. The extents to which severe punishments such as the death penalty deter criminals are hotly debated by criminologists. However, more widely accepted is the notion that punishing tempting crimes of circumstances such as insider trading, can be effective in deterring crime. If the costs of the crime to the likely criminal are incredibly small, he or she will take the chance of getting caught.
1025 , directed the jury that they could infer such an intention if they were satisfied that, in throwing his son, W appreciated that there was a substantial risk of causing serious injury. W contended that, by using the phrase "a substantial risk" rather than "a virtual certainty", the judge had enlarged the mental element of murder to an unacceptable extent. The Court of Appeal dismissed that ground of appeal, holding that the phrase "a virtual certainty" should be restricted to cases where the evidence of intent was limited to actions admitted by the accused and their attendant consequences and that, where other evidence was available, the phrase did not have to be used. Held, allowing the appeal, that, in departing from the login.westlaw.co.uk/maf /wluk/app/deliv ery /document 2/15 11/10/12 Deliv ery | Westlaw UK Nedrick direction and using the phrase "a substantial risk", the judge had