Plea bargaining Name Institutional affiliation Trial by a jury was intended as a truth seeking mechanism, a means of achieving fairness and a way to hold the government to the principles of the constitution. The Sixth Amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. It gives the defendant a right to challenge evidence presented by the government and provides for a conviction only if an impartial jury finds the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the right to a fair trial, the criminal justice system is largely a system of plea-bargaining with the outcome being decided by the prosecutor (Bibas, 2004). This paper will look at the use of plea bargaining in the criminal justice
RATIONALE: The legal premise of the jury instructions was sound. Professor Glanville Williams states, on the basis of both UK and US authority, "To the requirement of actual knowledge there is one strictly limited exception...[The] rule is that if a party has his suspicion aroused but then deliberately omits to make further enquiries, because he wishes to remain in ignorance, he is deemed to have knowledge." The Model Penal Code, Section 2.02(7) states, “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist." In several cases, the Supreme Court has applied the Model Penal Code definition of
It also guarantees that life, liberty and property cannot be taken away without the due process of law. The Sixth Amendment allows for one accused of a crime to have a trial and a jury. The accused has the right to know what crime they were accused of, and has the right to hear all witnesses against them. The accused have the right to call witnesses to court. The accused is also guaranteed a lawyer, if they cannot afford one, the government must provide one.
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment. In the 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any government state or federal has the duty to disclose to a defendant and his counsel any exculpatory information or evidence in its possession.
Introduction Sir William Blackstone had once stated that “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. The statement clearly shows the weight of the presumption of innocence as to the working of the criminal justice system. Hence, a series of international human rights treaties were introduced to give effect to this. This is in support of the idea - he who asserts must prove, which means, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The burden of proof is an obligation on one party to persuade the jury or a judge of an alleged claim.
Since the founding of our judicial system there have always been individuals claiming innocence to a crime that they have been found guilty of, traditionally, after their sentencing no matter how innocent they may or may not be would have to serve, live and possibly die by the decision of their peers. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck alongside Peter J. Neufeld faces this issue by challenging the sentencing of convicted individuals who claim their innocence and have factual ground to stand upon. The Innocence Project uses the recent advances in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing to prove their client’s innocence by using methods that were not available, too primitive or not provided to their clients during their investigation,
He asserted that Gideon should had been entitled to having a defense lawyer regardless of special circumstances, because no man can have a fair trial without a lawyer. In order to have an equal protection of the laws, the requirement of the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment should be imposed to every state. To be more specific, either the state court or the federal court should provide a defendant with a lawyer at least from the defendant’s the first arraignment through the trial and appeal. This right should be applicable to all criminal offenses but misdemeanors, thereby the right to counsel was guaranteed for both the poor and the rich. Basically, Abe Fortas indicated that this right was supposed to be a fundamental
Evaluate the effectiveness of the ‘cardinal principles’ enunciated by Prof. Ian Dennis vis-à-vis reversal of burden onto the defendant in criminal cases. To what extend does it achieve it’s purpose? Introduction In Woolmington v DPP, Viscount Sankey LC laid down the golden thread rule (also known as concept of presumption of innocence) which presumed the defendant is innocence until proven guilty by the prosecution by proposed “Throughout the web of the English criminal law, one golden thread is always be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…” The prosecution bears the legal burden to prove the guilt of defendant beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases whereby the defendant bears the evidential burden
It is the positive law of duties and rights. It refers to the meaning of life, liberty, and property, applies mainly to criminal law, that is, to the definition of crimes and punishments. Substantive law determines the rights and duties of a person and it deals with the structure and facts of the case. The law has independent power and capacity to decide the fate of the case. In any way it cannot be applied in non-legal contexts.
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.
The U.S. justice system is considered the fairest of all but if confessions are inadmissible and true criminals are released then our society will progress under great peril from continued violent acts. Law enforcement officers are mandated by Miranda to advise subjects in a custodial interrogation of their rights under the Fifth Amendment and their right to a counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The policies of police departments everywhere had to be changed due to Miranda; as this decision provided a fundamental shift in the tactics being used by investigators to interrogate suspects. No longer could officers pray on the ignorance of the law or intimidation of authority in order to compel confessions. “The courts have made it very clear that the use of physical force or physical abuse or even the threat of this type of conduct on the part of police will render a confession involuntary” (Wicklander & Zulawski, 2002, p.
Sex offenders come in all status, all colors, creed, and background. But, they still have certain unalienable rights. All persons have the right to be tried in civil or criminal courts and proven guilty. This takes us to the uniformity act in our judicial system. I agree that if a person is young or old, rich or poor, black or white, the law should be enacted and due process enforced.
What are the Miranda Rights and what should they mean to you? Why is exercising the Miranda Rights beneficial to you? Why are law enforcement officers required by law to advise an individual that is being investigated for a criminal offense of their Miranda Rights? Why should Miranda Rights be important to you? The Miranda Right should be important to you, because when being arrested, questioned, or investigated a person must know the constitutional rights that are given unto them so they know what they are able and unable to do.
And another question is what property can be taken for what reimbursement. Amendment 6 ¬ Right to a fair trial- This amendment means that in all criminal prosecutions, the person being accused shall enjoy the right to a fast and public trial, by a fair jury from the State and district where the crime has been committed. It also means that the person being tried is to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and confront the witnesses against them; to have obligated process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the right to an attorney. ¬ What happens if a jury can not make up their mind and the trial is dragging on when it should be going