Some defendants may use the insanity plea to escape imprisonment, but they are not truly insane. If you wouldn’t want a murderer to go free of punishment, then you don’t want a criminal to be innocent, because of their “mental illness”. The Insanity Defense should not exempt the mentally ill from prosecution for their crimes, reminding us that insanity is not an excuse for criminal actions. The Insanity Defense is used in a criminal case and argues that a defendant is not guilty because they were not responsible for their actions while committing a criminal act. Some defendants under the defense may be declared NGRI; not guilty by
Even if A ends up dying B is not liable for A’s death. He may only merely have a moral obligation to help but he cannot be charged with murder or battery. Basically, B cannot be prosecuted for his failure to act. Although this is the general principle, it is subject to exceptions. Where a person is under a duty to act and he fails to do so he is deemed to be criminally liable for the omission.
Shame and embarrass is not an emotion many want to experience and to avoid shame people will not commit criminal activity as they do not want to be humiliated. Shaming affect the pride of criminals and when combined with other punitve measure can be effective, shaming punish criminals psychologically. The fact is no punishment will be suitable for all individuals, as not even capital punishment is proven to be a deterrence to all. I think shaming will be especially beneficial in punishment of sexual
Something happens – injustice, a threat to a nation or a criminal act. Why is it that some people take actions against the so-called “wrongdoers” while some others remain silent? Who or what determines whether something is an “ethical” decision/action? I believe these questions eventually boil down to ethical dilemmas, which are a conflict between moral imperatives. According to me, no party can be judged to be absolutely right or wrong in any given situation; it is a lot more subjective.
It is a principle where negligence can be inferred and the plaintiff cannot prove its exact cause. The loss or injury would not have occurred under normal circumstances if the party have performed and upheld his duty of care. Evidence may not be present as the facts are so explicit and obvious that they would not normally occur if there were no forms of negligence present. If the defendant had upheld proper duty of care, the injury to the plaintiff would not have occurred. It is a rule of evidence which creates a presumption that a defendant acted negligently simply because a particular accident
The offended party's own carelessness disentitled him to bring any activity against the careless litigant. Here Plaintiff's carelessness does not mean break of obligation towards the other party yet it implies nonattendance of due consideration on his part about his own security. "The principle of law is that if there is an accuse bringing on the mishap for both sides, however little that accuse may be for one side, the misfortune lies where it fizzles." This guideline worked an awesome hardship especially for the offended party in light of the fact that for a slight carelessness on his part, he may lose his activity against a litigant whose carelessness may have been the fundamental driver of harm to the offended
Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor he is guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical
It discourages the efficient exercise of control because organizations which exert control over agents are likely to be deemed “masters,” and thus face liability fortheir agents’ torts. It also is inefficient because it distorts independent contractor relationships by providing organizations which hire independent contractors with excessive incentives to employ thinly capitalized independent contractors..Finally, it fails to provide organizations with efficient incentives to use the other tools available to them, such as financial incentives, to induce wealth-constrained independent contractors to take efficient care to prevent harm to others. Organizations bear the full cost of care, but they do not obtain the full benefit of preventing accidents when their independent contractors cannot pay for the harms they
In the case of recklessness it is sufficient that a person not think about the possible results or take risk on the fact they don’t think the outcome is likely. Where as for knowledge, similar to oblique intention the defendant “ shuts his eyes and fails to enquire because he is virtually certain what the answer will be” (e.g. Ross v.Moss  2QB 369), in this case the court will invoke the doctrine of wilful blindness, the defendant will be considered to have actual knowledge. Therefore the extent to what the defendant foresaw is key. On the other hand the argument could be that its not a distinguishing factor due to the similarities regarding foresight between intention and knowledge.
So this act is of no help to decide whether the information captured is admissible as the functioning should be normal while the information was captured. It is also important to note that this act is limited to criminal evidence. Well, in practice the parties in litigation do not strict to the hearsay rule and can us ways to trip up the unwary