The defendant appealed the manslaughter conviction on the grounds that he could not be liable for the victim’s death as he did not physically kill her. It could be argued that the defendant was right as the victim had been killed by police bullets and not his own. The police officers involved were also negligent as they were accused of taking out the light in the hallway which left them unable to see that the victim was in front of the defendant. The police were found to be negligent and were ordered to pay civil compensation to the victim’s family. However, his appeal was rejected as the defendant’s unlawful and dangerous act directed against the
Aside from the verdict from the Hinckley trial, the public’s view on the insanity defense is not altogether accurate. There’s a misconception that criminals who use this type of reasoning as a plea can evade punishment. When it comes to the use of the insanity defense, only about one percent of criminals use this type of justification. By using the insanity defense, the criminal is admitting they are guilty of the crime however they are requesting a not guilty verdict based on the state of mind they were in at the time of the crime. This can get tricky for a defendant because if not proven mentally ill, they will be found guilty and usually endure a harsher sentencing for the crime.
In the year of 1921, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, were convicted of robbery and murder. Although the arguments brought against them were mostly disproven in court, the fact that the two men were known radicals, prejudiced the judge and jury against them. It didn’t help that their trial took place during the height of the Red Scare. On April 9, 1927, Sacco and Vanzetti's final appeal was declined, and the two were sentenced to death. The most prominent and respectable critic of the trial was known to be Felix Frankfurter, a professor at Harvard Law School.
Weekly Position Paper #1 Equality in the Justice System Although many researchers have found biological reasoning toward many serial killings, it is no reason to justify serial killers’ acts and harm onto society. It is believed that many serial killers are perceived to have a mental disorder of some kind, causing them to enact in murders without feeling any guilt or concern over their actions. Jack Pemment’s “What Would We Find Wrong in the Brain of a Serial Killer?” depicts the mental disorders: Atisocial Personailty Disorder (APD), Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), Narcisstic Personality Disorder (NPD) and schizophrenia in the order from most recognized to least. All four have the common characteristic that serial killers are biologically affected mentally, which affects their lack of emotional reaction or empathy as far as their knowing of good from bad, right from wrong. Researchers and scientists have diagnosed four types of symptoms and their characteristics, but just because many serial
A case where the ‘but for test’ wasn’t proved was the case of White, this is because although he set out to poison his mother, she died of a heart attack which wasn’t linked. Legal causation is where there is a connecting conduct with resulting effect. This is where you see the ‘thin skull rule’ which basically says you take your victim as you find them. A case to support this is Blaue where a Jehovah’s Witness refused a blood transfusion after suffering multiple stab wounds. The defendant was guilty of manslaughter.
Why gun control won’t stop crime After the tragedy in Newton CT, where twenty-six innocent people lost their lives gun control seems to be a hot topic again. The ideas of certain types of gun control have been all over the news and radio talk shows ever since the tragedy. But it’s my belief that gun control is not the answer to violent crime, and in my opinion gun control doesn’t make us safer, it just makes law-abiding citizens an easier target for crime. Many opponents for stricter gun control laws have stated it will cut down on violent crime, or mass shootings such as the one in Newtown. Politicians have stated thy will introduce new laws wanting tougher background checks, forced registration, and outright banning of military looking firearms.
But what most of you probably don’t know, is that this cop got away with murder, the shooting of john Williams was declared unjustified, and a normal citizen with this charge would do anywhere from 25 years to life in prison. Ian berk was charged with being negligent and got no reasonable punishment from the law, besides a short term suspension from duty. Washington state law makes it extremely difficult to press charges against any police officers around the state, and around the country it is nearly impossible for a police officer to get charged with a crime of injustices. So how will we ever catch the cops doing wrong if we can’t even charge them? Police officers around the country know this is the case, they know they can abuse their power and get away with it.
The court pleads the man guilty without any proof of rape. Had this been a white man instead the outcomes would have been different. When Tom Robinson was asked why he helped the “Victim” he answered “Looks like she didn't have nobody to help her. I felt sorry for her”(Lee chap 19-20). When Tom said those words the court couldn’t believe what they had heard.
Not only did this study state that the weapons banned were only used in a small percent of crimes even before the ban, but also "found no statistical evidence of post-ban decreases in either the number of victims per gun-homicide incident, the number of gunshot wounds per victim, or the proportion of gunshot victims with multiple wounds. "(Koper, Roth 67) So even if Congress bans these vaguely named assault weapons it will most likely be as ineffective as the last time they did so. Some take issue with the ban not because of its’ functionality problems, but because they feel it violates their rights as
Capital punishment saves money and overcrowding in the prisons. The death penalty is the only punishment that would directly compensate for the tragic loss of a loved one. Cons---There are some people against the death penalty because they believe it is not fair to the poor, who cannot afford to hire an attorney to defend them. The poor usually get the death penalty because they are appointed an incompetent court appointed attorney with little or no experience in trying capital cases. There have been a lot of innocent people put to death.