The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order. Frank’s argument states that people have the wrong idea about a minor law and go against it, but they should act as if it is a violent or serious crime.
The tort of trespass against the person is the relevant issue here which consists of assault, battery ,false imprisonment and emotional suffering which can be identified in the first problem question. RULES: The Non-Fatal Offences against the Persons Act 1997 is the act which protects a person against the tort of trespass against a person. Battery is the direct application of physical contact upon the person of another without his or her consent, express or implied. It is contact which is outside of what is generally accepted in everyday life. Blackstone stated “The least touching of another’s person wilfully, or in anger ,is a battery ; for the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence and, therefore, totally prohibits
The M’Naghten Rules laid down in the House of Lords judgement form a rough guideline and subsequently, legal insanity is contingent on the cognitive powers of the accused to understand the consequences of his/her actions. It thus, diverges from the medical definition as mentally ill people may meet the minimum threshold of rationality that legally insane people cannot achieve. The retributive theory of criminal justice follows that only who can understand the wrongfulness of their actions should be punished. Legally insane persons are excused in law as they are not regarded as morally responsible agents, analogous to children as the insane mature mind and the sane immature mind though different in nature, are equally incapable of forming rational decisions. The defence of insanity stems from the fact that insane people are regarded to not understand the consequences of their actions and hence, cannot form the requisite mens rea or intention for their actions to be condemned a crime As per the legal maxim of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, the mere act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind; for the same reason, legally insane people cannot be guilty of a
If the criminal process’s disciplinary is effective to prevent crime. The crime control theory would result in the state official is likely to violate the freedom of the people easily. The state official is authorized to use the extensive compulsory legal in order to effectively prevent crime. The result is that the court does not agree to hear evidence obtained illegally that will not appear at all or are very sparse. The court will hold the value of the evidence rather than to relinquish valuable witness.
Actus reus refers to a guilty act and mens rea means a guilty state of mind. When crimes have been committed, a selection of defenses may be brought into by a defense attorney in order to negate a guilty verdict. In law, it is known that an individual should not be held
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
This means, the perpetrator should have coerced the victim and the later should have defended for an act to constitute rape. Simply saying "No" was not sufficient to find the defendant guilty, and there was no attempt to define what constituted consent. That the law placed too much focus on whether the victim resisted and did not reflect real-life scenarios in which people were raped. By considering the above fact, Germany's parliament has passed a new law defining rape, clarifying that "No means No", even if a victim did not fight back. Under the new law both physical and verbal cues from the victim will take into account when assessing whether rape took place, meaning, in theory, that saying "No" could prove a lack of consent and constitute rape .
Garofalo rejected the traditional rule that discipline ought to fit the wrongdoing, contending rather that it ought to fit the criminal. As a decent positivist, he trusted that offenders have little control over their activities. This denial of through and through freedom (and, consequently, of good obligation) and fitting the discipline to the guilty party would in the end lead to sentencing went for the sympathetic and liberal objectives of treatment and restoration. For Garofalo, nonetheless, the main inquiry to be considered at sentencing was the risk the guilty party postured to society, which was to be judged by a wrongdoer 's
Ultimately, their task was to decide whether the lower court had violated the defendants ' rights by not instructing the jury on the presumption of innocence, assuming that reasonable doubt was fundamentally the same as presumption of innocence. What is reasonable doubt? Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of
Deterrence’s main perspective is that of people’s fear of the punishment and causing them to avoid crime. This was fully supported by Home Secretary Michael Howard when he addressed the Conservative Party conference in 1993 and more recently Conservative leader William Hague in 2000. Unfortunately, deterrence is not effective, as no certain penalty prevented someone from committing a given crime. There are two kinds of deterrence. Individual deterrence when the individual that commits the crime is punished, and finds the punishment so frightening that they never commit the offence again.
Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
However, the public will deem the search excessive use of force on the accused performed by the RCMP officer. This search would increase public outrage regarding excessive use of police powers as they believe the search could have performed in a less intrusive mean. Furthermore, the “throat hold” should not be performed on anyone especially females as it can result in health complications (Atherley & Hickman, 2014). However, it is necessary to note that the “throat hold” is a common practice used by the RCMP drug squad to prevent drug traffickers from destroying evidence. This practice is not illegal as it is used to prevent the swallowing of drugs that may be in the accused mouth that will aid in substantiating the charge.
This of course resulted in anger and outrage causing protests, vandalism, and more unnecessary crimes and violence. There being a possibility that race did play a factor in the outcome of these trials the point that I rather focus on is how even if there was no racial factor to consider the verdicts should have still gone the other way. Deadly force is an act that can’t later be reversed or rectified if misused so unless a police officer is put in a life threatening situation deadly force should not come into play. In the Eric Garner and Mike Brown encounters there were specific moments where the deaths of the two victims could have been avoided. Choking or shooting an unarmed suspect should never be considered reasonable force.
One of these rules is that prior sexual history should not be brought up by defense counsel to discredit complainant. This helps to protect the complainant from further trauma and to insure the trial is fair and just. In trials, complainants are able to use testimonial aids. There aids help prevent further trauma from happening by aiding complainants tell their emotional stories. There are many challenges faced in Sexual Assault Law.
When Rudolf Hess stated that he was actually prepared to do so, this right was ignored (McKeown 34). When Hess stated that he was prepared to act as his own counsel, this right was ignored. In denying Hess this right, the court argued they were doing him a favor. Hess was exhibiting signs of amnesia and insanity, and any effort made to argue his own case would likely have been compromised and unproductive. However, the opportunity to argue one 's own case is inherent in the right to counsel.