There’s a misconception that criminals who use this type of reasoning as a plea can evade punishment. When it comes to the use of the insanity defense, only about one percent of criminals use this type of justification. By using the insanity defense, the criminal is admitting they are guilty of the crime however they are requesting a not guilty verdict based on the state of mind they were in at the time of the crime. This can get tricky for a defendant because if not proven mentally ill, they will be found guilty and usually endure a harsher sentencing for the crime. About sixty to seventy percent of insanity pleas are for crimes other than
In the court of law a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, you cannot convict someone without the proper evidence and a court to back up the evidence against the person being accused. In a court a judge or jury will decide whether the person should be convicted innocent or guilty based on the evidence. If proven guilty they can be sentenced to jail, life sentence, or in a serious case sentenced to death. Everyone has their rights and they cannot be violated without the proper evidence to be convicted. I am all forward with this statement, it would be horrid if they convicted people based on appearance, and accusations rather than based on evidence!
For instance, if an eyewitness misidentifies a person whom they believe to be the suspect and report that person to the police and the “suspect” reacts out of anger when stopped by police causing an altercation to take place, which often times may be physical. Now that person may be facing charges for a crime they didn’t commit and also may be facing charges for the altercation that occurred during the arrest for the crime they didn’t commit. It is extremely important for eyewitnesses to have a clear and convincing description of the suspect because it can easily cause further complications. It can also ruin an innocent persons life if they are wrongfully convicted of the crime because of the
The accused cannot be sent to the gallows without their crime being proven with sufficient and concrete evidence. The court rejects the petition that says Elizabeth Proctor is of good character, signed by the people attesting to it. It was instead viewed as an attack against the court. There are also multiple instances where the court relies upon the girls ' visions and prosecuted people because of it. The court has absolutely no right to decide a man 's fate upon falsified claims without a logical and sensible way of examining the allegations.
This is because Danforth feels that if he is lenient with his decisions, it looks as though he is weak and being unfair to the rest who did not get postponed. Since Danforth has authority over the rest of the court, John Proctor is later executed due to Danforth signature. Additionally, he uses the number of cases he has had in court and the amount he has put in jail as a number to hold over peoples heads. The number Danforth claims is a point of trying to scare those who may being lying and show that Danforth is merciless. He tells the open court, “And do you know that near to four hundred are in the jails from Marblehead to Lynn, and upon my signature?”(81).
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged, according to Doug Linder. The jury will nullify a law because it believes that it wrongly applies to the particular defendant. Is this right or wrong? Should a jury have the right to override the law? Juries have the power to nullify a law, but do they have the right to?
“After an individual has been accused of a crime, the process generally moves to the courts” (ic.galegroup.com). In ic.galegroup.com, if there is evidence to be presented against the criminal to get indicted, a list of charges against the accused will be given. There are cases that justice was served unfairly. Sadly there are many who are imprisoned for illegal activity they did not carry out. Also, people are punished harshly for doing something very minor where no one or anything was hurt, stolen or broken.
According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment.
The law should be amended or changed to make it less vague and to ensure that it does not obstruct freedom of speech or the rule of law. In particular, ‘insulting’ is far too weak a condition as is the concept of causing harassment, alarm or distress. This law is far too vague and damaging to freedom of speech. It allows simple disputes to escalate into legal argument or process resulting into people ending up with criminal records just for getting into an argument. A recent case of “Harvey v Director of Public Prosecutions ” required the high court to re-examine the common situation where a person has been charged with section 5 offence after swearing at a police officer.
This of course resulted in anger and outrage causing protests, vandalism, and more unnecessary crimes and violence. There being a possibility that race did play a factor in the outcome of these trials the point that I rather focus on is how even if there was no racial factor to consider the verdicts should have still gone the other way. Deadly force is an act that can’t later be reversed or rectified if misused so unless a police officer is put in a life threatening situation deadly force should not come into play. In the Eric Garner and Mike Brown encounters there were specific moments where the deaths of the two victims could have been avoided. Choking or shooting an unarmed suspect should never be considered reasonable force.
So if segregation is morally wrong, it can’t be a just law and Dr. King looks at it as being acceptable to violate the segregation ordinances because it is an unjust law. Another example of an unjust law is when a larger group creates a law that the smaller group couldn’t have a voice in because obstacles prevented them from voting. At the time period different methods kept Negros from becoming registered voters. In other words it wouldn’t be fair to say the governing body that enacted the segregation laws were voted in by the majority, when a large portion didn’t a have voice in the matter. King argued it was justifiable to break this law because a law couldn’t be just when the Negro communities weren’t given the same rights to vote on the segregation laws.
Yet, there is a significant proportion of death row inmates are mentally ill and the research evidence found suggests that mental illness is often, in fact, an aggravating factor as far as capital sentencing bodies are concerned. The Supreme Court eventually came to the conclusion of this: “If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily committed - who may not be punished at all - in unsafe conditions” (French, 2005) There are rights that each individual has, and there needs to be guidelines to make sure each person is treated fairly, even if they do not deserve such