With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Both sides have been pretty stubborn in their views, the reason why we haven’t reached a decision as a whole. The supporters generally state the pros fairly similarly. They usually include the fact that public executions of criminals would serve as a viable crime deterrent. The logic behind this seems solid, as it would definitely keep those who maybe have a crime in mind or the potential for one from doing so, and thinking twice. Of course it wouldn’t completely stop the crimes, they will always happen.
A plea bargaining allows both parties to avoid a long criminal trail and it may also allow the criminal defendant to avoid risk of conviction trail on a more serious charge. A defendant entering a plea must sign a statement certifying that they comprehend the plea, and are entering into the agreement voluntary and without begin pressured. An Example will be if a defendant is charged with a felony theft charged, the conviction would be imprisonment in a state prison. The offender may have the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge, which will carry over to jail time. If a judge perceives that the plea bargain is too lenient the judge has the right to reject the plea and order of the prosecuting and the defense to renegotiate.
They struggle over the gun, Carl pulls the trigger, and John is fatally wounded. Answer 1: Voluntary manslaughter occurs when one person kills another after provocation. It is also a crime that someone commits out of passion. So in this case then yes Carl could be successfully prosecuted for voluntary manslaughter. He could be charged with voluntary manslaughter because Carl lost self control and got his gun out of his closet and pointed it at John because he caught his wife
First you have the Prosecution. The responsibility of the prosecution is to prove that without a shadow of a doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Im sure there are times that the prosecution does not think the defendant is not guilty but it is there moral right to keep the trial going and prove their case. It has got to be difficult for the prosecution to know that because of the case they have built against a person could decide the rest of their life. Lets get to the Defense.
First, he broke the department policy by not video recording the interview which was essential to built a solid case if they had confess in which he claimed the two did. Secondly, he did not have either of the young offenders guardian(s) present which was a grand mistake. Not only did he confess to intentionally crossing the line by avoiding bringing in the parents and including them in the interview he probably is also guilty of coercing them in the confession. According, to the self-incrimination clause it clearly states that any statement made by defendant(s) while in police custody before trail will be inadmissible during prosecution unless the police first warn the defendants that they have the right to remain silent, the right to consult an attorney before being questioned, the right to have an attorney present during police questioning, the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to be informed that any statement they do make can
I believe neuro-imaging could be used as evidence. While many people may use it as an excuse for their actions, it makes sense for why they did these actions. I do not believe it should give them a free pass out of jail (since they still know its wrong and CAN ask for help), but I do think they need counseling and medication over some jail time since that is the only thing that will cure their problem. 5. Do you believe that the judicial system should be based on holding people accountable for their choices (blame) or probability of future crimes committed?
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Plea Bargains I believe that plea bargains should be entered into with the defendant knowing and understanding the plea completely. The defendants comprehend that by taking the plea he or she is admitting guilt. Allowing pleas of no contest, or requiring an admission of guilt is wrong the fact remains that innocent people who see that they have no choice but to take the plea. Places innocent people in jail and after taking the plea have no recourse, if he or she eventually gets evidence of their innocence they cannot change what is on their record. I would think that if a judge knowingly accepts a plea agreement knowing that the defendant is not admitting that he or she is guilty, and does not believe that the defendant is taking the plea out of an admission of guilt should not agree to the plea.
The Appeal Court Introduction to Criminal Court System Steven Weber April 19, 2014 Terri Wilson What is an appeal? An appeal provides a convicted defendant with one more last opportunity to pursue his or her legal rights (CJi Interactive) Either side can appeal trial judge decisions on legal motions, even before the trial is complete. However, the prosecutor generally cannot appeal an acquittal, even if later evidence of quilt. What this all really means is that if an offender loses in court they can take it to a higher court, and if that does not work they can take it to