“Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.” according to Steve Landsberg. The insanity plea, although helpful in some cases, can be abused by a multitude of convicted criminals looking for an effortless trial. The first example of the insanity defense ever being used during a court case would be in the 1843. When Daniel M’Naughten tried to assassinate the prime minister of Britain, he was put on trial and was later acquitted due to being found not guilty by reason of insanity. This was later carried out through twenty-six other states, including the U.S., which created a precedent against the execution of the mentally ill in 1986.
The law on double jeopardy has a 1“legal heritage of 800 years”. It has been under criticism in recent years as guilty criminals can get away with crimes from a technicality in the justice system. This law stops the retrial of accused criminals who in their trials were proven guilty. I personally disagree with the current double jeopardy laws and believe that changes need to be implemented in the current law to make them more just. The case of Raymond John Carroll is spread over decades and as it developed more witnesses came forward and better technology also developed.
It is extremely important to understand that physical evidence from a crime scene does not define someone as a person. Because of the inability of judges, police, and lawyers to fully understand motives of criminals, forensic psychologists are increasingly called upon in recent years (Wachtel). The wellbeing of society is calling; will you pick up the
did commit the crime, but the court and others say otherwise. After a long drawn out trial the court appointed jury deemed Simpson not guilty on a Tuesday morning in Los Angeles, California. The media was all over the case throughout the trial, giving the outside world as much information as possible, allowing the people to form their own opinion; most of which being that Simpson was surely guilty. Other’s were wrapped around Simpson’s finger believing every single word he said. But, if Simpson did do it, what brought him to it ?
He had been found guilty by the jury after deliberating for just under an hour. Charges included possession of cocaine, resisting arrest without violence, possessions of paraphernalia, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Added to the substantial evidence against him, the prosecutor referenced his prior criminal during the sentence, in an attempt to sway the judge to levy a harsher punishment. It’s possible to say that from the very beginning, the defendant was in a tough situation, and really squandered an opportunity to get a shorter sentence. During the sentencing, the defendant asked the judge to assert a punishment he deemed fitting for the circumstances of the crime, but also considerate enough where he had the opportunity to be with him family as soon as possible.
As stated in Anthony Brandt’s article, An Unholy Mess, “Legally, spectral evidence was not grounds for convicting a witch. The judges in Salem, however, accepted it…” This implies that many people were being convicted on illegal evidence. They could be spared if they confessed but confessions were very rare (Brandt, p. 42) (Schiff). The fear of the Devil walking freely among Salem
The forensic mishap occurred when “a state forensic examiner testified that a hair recovered from a shirt of Avery’s was consistent with Beernsten’s hair but did not present qualifying information about the limitations of hair microscopy” (Innocence Project). Thus, with only an incorrect witness identification and a careless examiner’s presentation of hair microscopy, Steven was convicted of a crime that he did not commit. Forensic evidence is obviously a strong force for conviction because no one is going to argue with the science. Thus, when the jury and the judge see a forensic examiner testify that hair matches with the suspect, they will most likely lean more toward conviction. One way that a case like this could be prevented in the future is by “Supporting judicial training and other efforts to ensure that future decisions in admissibility consider the validity of a forensic test in general, and the validity
Witnesses to crimes are sometimes asked to view a police lineup to see if they can identify the culprit. Using experimentally created events, psychological researchers have long warned that eyewitness identification evidence is less reliable than people seem to believe. Corroborating the concerns of psychologists, since the advent of forensic DNA testing in the 1990s, 258 people convicted by juries in the United States have been freed based on exculpatory DNA tests, and 200 of these were cases of mistaken eyewitness identification (Innocence Project, 2010). Examination of the reasons for these mistaken identifications has provided rich avenues of investigation guided by cognitive and social perspectives. Here we focus on (a) variables that
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
The number of DNA Evidence that had wrongly accused inmates was a total of 333 in thirty-seven states (“Exonerated DNA”). Inmates that have committed a crime have to take a DNA test. DNA Evidence will prove whether a convicted person is innocent or guilty. There is many unsolved cases due to the fact that DNA testing did not go the way it was supposed to and screwed up the results. Not taking peoples DNA is a major issue due to the fact that many people are wrongly convicted and are put into prison for a crime they did not commit.