Despite all of that, questions may arise from the topic such as is it right to detain a person before trial just to have him to be presented on the day of trial in case he is deemed guilty or is it right for one to confiscate a suspect’s money (bail money) to be certain that he will pay for the fine later as part of his sentence? Such actions made are clear that it is violating the presumption of innocence as it was only ‘assumed’ that the person is indeed guilty and applying a pre – trial detention is based on the reliance of ‘double suspicion’ as such to the case of Sheldrake v DPP. [cite] The point is further discussed by Lord Bingham based on the case of Sheldrake v DPP, “The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The Convention does not outlaw presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within reasonable limits and should not be arbitrary. It is open to states to define the constituent elements of a criminal offence, excluding the requirement of mens rea.
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
Strict Liability Offences, Fair and Just or a step to far. In a criminal trial the burden is on the prosecution to prove mens rea on the part of the accused, in doing so as to demonstrate intent, recklessness or knowledge on their part unless the crime is one of strict liability. The three types of mens rea which the courts take into consideration are set out as follows; Intent refers to the state of mind accompanying an act especially a forbidden act. It is the outline of the mental pattern which is necessary to do the crime. At times criminal intent is used in the sense of mens rea-the mental element requisite for guilt of the offense charged.
Which amendments focus on the rights of people accused of crimes? What rights do these amendments guarantee? The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment focuses on the rights of people accused of crimes. The Fifth Amendment protects an accused citizen of self incrimination and double jeopardy. It also guarantees that life, liberty and property cannot be taken away without the due process of law.
First, the 8th Amendment helps the courts to take a decision. It helps them to give the right punishment. Also, the 8th Amendment helps the government to be fair. That means, courts should give fair punishments to people who commit crimes. For example, the court can’t give the same punishment to someone who stole a CD and someone who killed a person.
The two types of deterrence are general and specific with General deterrence is the punishment of criminals that is intended to serve as an example to the public to try a discourage them from committing the same crime as others. It is often used for the hope that it will show people that if you commit a certain crime this is what you can expect to happen to you. And hopefully it will scare people straight or at least will think twice about it. Specific deterrence is when a punishment is exacted on a criminal to try an discourage them from committing any crimes in the future. And the punishment needs to be extreme enough so that they will completely understand that their crimes have consequences and maybe it will help them
A person would be released even if he committed a crime is severe case scenario because his committing crime prior to the self-incrimination would itself serve as an evidence that he was guilty of the charge. According 18 U.S. Code section 3501, If a suspect voluntarily accepts his crime. The jury accepts his confession, voluntarily given, considering all circumstances in which he admitted
They believe that their “target” is going to do wrong to the world, another person, or themselves. In some cases, the defendant hears voices he believes are telling them to commit these crimes to protect himself. This crime then becomes, in the mind of the defendant, a crime of self defense. Although the victim has not done anything outstandingly wrong, the defendant still believes that the victim is out to get them. If someone so mentally obstructed cannot comprehend reality, then sending them to prison, without medical attention, will not make them automatically understand their wrong doings.
Another factor is having to prove the motivation for the crime. A jury, lawyer, or a judge will not be able to know exactly what the person was thinking during the time the criminal committed the crime. Only the criminal will know his intent. This means a lawyer is unable to “prove” the intent of the criminal, which leads to no other form of punishment than a criminal with no intent. If a criminal was found of prejudicial motivation, it is “unconstitutional to punish him for it” because the reason of punishment violates the First Amendment
In any way it cannot be applied in non-legal contexts. We could say that how should a murder explained in the form of example. Depending upon the circumstances and whether the murderer had the intent to commit the crime, the same act of homicide can fall under different levels of punishment. In a nutshell, substantive law deals with the substance of the case, how the charges are to be handled and how the facts are to be dealt with. General examples include the laws regarding torts (laws against any wrong doing for which an action for damages be brought), contracts, and real property.