The court is to see whether re he parties involved argue the game being played before it is fair and conducive to justice or not. The representation of lawyer from both sides is obligatory, the accused has right to silence. He need not give evidence from his side. Prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt lastly the accused may claim benefit of doubt Individual 's right to privacy is best preserved under it. Its demerits is that the accused does not help the police during investigations hence the prosecutor has the mandate to look for evidence to submit in the court hence the police must work on his own strength against the accused.
I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society. I do not agree with not punishing people who do wrong things. I feel that no matter how big the crime or infraction is, there must be punishment, if not then society will keep breaking the rules, and then we would live in an unsafe world, we would not have a sound mind, and be able to function,
As there is no clear victim in this case the principle of harm will not be applicable here and would not be considered as an act that can be criminalised. This paper is about whether a victimless crime can be criminalised. Various theorists have argued in favour and against the criminalisation process. The argument against criminalisation is mainly on the violation of the individual autonomy of a person, where he will be criminalised for an act that he did as a part of exercising his autonomy and has not affected any other person in the process. On the other hand, one argument from the side favouring criminalization is that if such acts are not criminalised then they may cause social harm.
If a defendant was not able to recognize the difference between wrong and right, than he/she cannot be held liable for the crime. In the United States, the insanity plea is not used to prove a defendant's innocence or dismiss his/her case. Instead, it is often used to reduce the severity of the conviction and sentence acquired by the
Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime. Actus reus is the guilty deed or act and mens rea is the guilty state of mind.
In criminal law when a criminal act is alleged to have been committed, the essential requirement for the crime is that the victim was opposed to the crime. One of the available defences when a criminal act is committed is that the victim actually gave consent to the acts . The defence of consent is available to certain case that result in bodily harm which includes assault and battery. For instance, in sports there is a physical contact. Participants are deemed to have consented to the physical contact and possible bodily harm.
The theory of criminal justice This theory states that criminal procedures are part and branch of philosophy that focuses on punish those who break the law. There is a strong correlation between criminal procedures and the philosophy of law as well as the morals and ethical standards of society. Criminal law theorists put more emphases on offenses that can be seen as illegal and that warrant criminalization of the activities or events. Thus, most of these theorists believe that there is the need to punish the lawbreakers to set an example to other individuals who may have intentions of following their suit or engaging in legal activities. Some of the activities classified by criminal law theorist as a crime or illegal include murder, rape and
A person deserves the same treatment they inflict on others. In this essay, I will discuss whether the claim that retributivists are making are right by justifying whether their assumptions about moral responsibility are well founded. A person who has committed a crime must be punished. Punishment makes sure that the offender pays their debt to the society or state. Retributivism justifies that punishment is payback for crime and its main goal is to give the offender their just deserts.
Introduction First of all, a defendant will only be found guilty of a crime if the prosecution can establish two main elements of a crime, which are actus reus and the mens rea. Actus reus is the wrongful act or omission that comprises the physical component of a crime. Mens rea is a person’s awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal. For a defendant to be held liable, it has to be proved that the defendant voluntarily performed the act or omission. In Hill v Baxter , it was established that the driver did not commit the offence voluntarily as he was attacked by a swarm of bees when driving.
After reading about the forfeited right theory, I agree that the theory is not only ethical, but it is quite intriguing. “The rights forfeiture theory of punishment contends that punishment is justified when and because the criminal has forfeited their right not to be subjected to this hard treatment” (Wellman, 2012, p. 371). When a person is taken into custody, their rights have been taken away from them. All of their rights except the Miranda Rights in which the individual is entitled to. So that means if a person commits a crime then they have already violated thier own rights therefore, they should not be complaining about their rights being violated.