Normally with proven information a claim can be true but because information was provided don 't mean it the truth of what happen, alway another side of the story. Saying if two parties involed. 6. Experts have the rightful authority to impose their beliefs on other people. Defintely not.
David, I agree with many points in your discussion board. Prosecutors and Defendants both take an oath that anything they present to the court is proven to be true. The integrity of the attorneys is a key role in the law aspect of criminal justice. When a prosecutor brings false evidence is brought to the court room then individuals have the chance of receiving a sentence they are not guilty for. While if an officer violates a convicted individuals rights and the defense does not present the violation in the trial, then this individual was misrepresented and both the defense attorney and officer should be punished.
My final recommendation is that, if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court must make the order unless the court is satisfied that the order is not in the interests of justice which can be seen under section 118 of Western Australia’s the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. In conclusion, I believe the amendment to the jury system provides an incredibly effective delivery of justice while still maintaining the accused’s right of presumption of innocence and right to a trial by jury referred to by Justice
If Rosenberg is correct, this does not mean that Hamilton’s argument that the Court is the “least dangerous branch” is also correct. Rosenberg’s view that courts can only produce significant social change given weak barriers and constraints does not by itself qualify Hamilton’s argument. There are other ways that the Court exerts influence in the political system other than promoting social change. There are three branches of government under the Constitution: (1) Executive, (2) Legislative, and (3) Judicial. The framers of the Constitution intended for the three branches to interact through a system of checks and balances, the mechanisms through which each branch is able to participate in and influence the activities of the other branches.
In regards to the detailed studies of both Segal and Spaeth, and Brenan and Stier, valid points had been made for both sides of the argument. The question posed is rather or not stare decisis still exist in the courts rulings today. Segal and Spaeth analyze the rulings of dissenting judges of landmark cases since the start of the Warren Court while excluding cases with unanimous decisions and cases without progeny within the legal period. The areas of which they dissected and constructed the particular datasets for analyzing is superb as it specifically narrows down the specific information there looking for within their results. The findings from there assessments concluded that precedent did not play a overwhelming role in the sub sequential
Members of the jury, you are essentially deciding the future of England. Will it be run under a constitution or absolutism? Do you believe it is possible that someone could be above the law? That they do not have to pay for their actions? That they are special because their actions have no repercussions?
The steps in entering a guilty plea is extremely important and the offender must understand the consequences of pleading guilty to a case. The Unites States Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea constitutes a conviction. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require judges to inform the defendant of the various rights he or she is surrendering by pleading guilty. Additionally, entering a guilty plea must be voluntary and not forced or result of any promises. There must be a factual basis to make sufficient inquiry for the plea.
Court, someone is going to be guilty or some one is going to be innocent. To prove that the person is guilty or free of charge you have to have evidence. But there are different types of evidence. Is forensic evidence the best type of evidence?
According to Cohen (2014) attorneys try to get the get the best sentencing outcomes for their clients. In other words, depending on the degree of the crime and what the defendant is being charged with, the attorney job is to provide a clear statement explaining why his client may be innocent or to an extent why something could have happened that wasn 't controllable. Main Defense One of the possible defenses that an attorney can chose is an affirmative defense, this just means that evidence is going to be presented to support locational clarity. This defense is the most common
“CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” was not the first crime show to hit the TV screens and it certainly is not the last. In response to its popularity and growing franchise, a controversial term was introduced in courts and through the media. It is called the CSI effect. The CSI effect has been closely defined as a trend that claims, through watching crime-related programmes such as “CSI” or “Law and Order”, the public, mainly people completing jury service, have their views about forensic evidence influenced. This primarily creates preconceived beliefs which allegedly affects the criminal justice system in many ways.
Introduction Two males, two rape crimes, yet two completely different types of punishment. Case One: Brock Turner is a 20 years old Caucasian male who was charged with rape of a female who was under the influence of alcohol in California. Case Two: Brian Banks, a black man, was also charged with rape who live in California. He was on the football team and had a full ride scholarship to college when he was charged the time of the crime. These two male have committed the same crimes, at two different time frame, yet one case gets a significantly longer sentence than the other.
In my opinion, the CSI effect is something that law enforcement may need to be concerned with. The CSI effect is where TV shows, such as, CSI, Crime Scene Investigation, Law & Order, Bones, and many other ones may alter the public’s perception about forensic science in criminal cases (Saferstein, 2015). With so many shows that are able to solve crimes within an hour and seem to be able to get evidence from anything and everything, hence, people get to the point that they believe that real law enforcement can do the same thing and in the same amount of time (Saferstein, 2015). This type of mentality affects us more in the judicial system with criminal trials; whereas, some of the jurors would believe that law enforcement should have or
When reviewing the issues associated with the criminal justice system in the United States, wrongful convictions are becoming a serious one that society as a whole needs to be aware of. While there are a countless factors that can contribute to a wrongful conviction, there are five distinct ones that are the leading causes in wrongful convictions: the adversarial process, Eyewitness identification, misconduct and errors regarding forensic evidence, interrogations and confessions, and jailhouse snitches/informants. In relation to wrongful convictions, the adversarial system places more emphasis on the process rather than truth finding, meaning an individual can usually only appeal if there is an issue regarding the process; if someone is wrongfully