In 1977 during Oregon vs. Mathiason case, the court put forward other situations where the people need to Mirandized. The court said: "Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. "(Franklin, 1998) This means that Miranda warnings need to be given before any “interview”, rather than interrogation, with anyone who is suspected of a crime, which includes those are not yet arrested. It is, thus, applicable in pre-arrest situations too. However, the person needs to be in “coercive”
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. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities. The differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming
The defense counsels can argue against the safeguard of accused before they are proved guilty with support of constitutional safeguards. The law enforcement officers cannot harass the accused or defame the accused because they are protected by the amendments in the constitution. The 4th Amendment states that unless there is warrant the house or accused cannot be searched. The law enforcement officers need to take permission before arrest or searching the accused. Due to this amendment in the constitution the adult criminal can get relief before they are proved guilty.
In this case Mr Austin did indeed plead guilty to aggravated assault causing harm. The result of this plea was a slightly reduced sentence. 3. The judge cites his reason for sentencing as a deterrent to both the accused and the rest of society. That is to say that the judge hopes the severity of the sentence will deter Mr Austin from offending again and serve as an example of the possible punishments for a crime of this severity to the rest of the public.
Contact a lawyer-It is very crucial to think ahead by seeking a lawyer 's advice during interrogation, although this does not translate to guilt admission. It 's the best choice in cases of extreme uncertainty or nervousness. 2. Get to know your rights- A person needs to demand and understand the type of questions from an interrogator, this enables an individual to take part in the process with more ease. When the police suspect an individual to have a direct link to the crime, a person needs to insist on his right to speak in the presence of a lawyer.
Just like other intentional torts, intention is required in false imprisonment and is a very important element. Carelessness is not enough, the defendant may have acted with a purpose to cause the confinement, or with substantial certainty that his acts will cause it. Second, the defendant’s intention must cause confinement of the plaintiff. The essence of the tort is restraint of the plaintiff’s freedom of movement, so they must establish confinement. It must be noted that blocking the plaintiff’s way will not amount to false imprisonment, as long as a reasonable alternate route is available.
At its heart is the idea that in the absence of effective controls, offenders will prey upon attractive targets. To have a crime, a motivated offender must come to the same place as an attractive target. For personal crimes such as kidnapping, the target is a person. In addition, there are controllers whose presence can prevent crime. If the controllers are absent, or present but powerless and corrupt, crime is possible (Figure 2.1).
This type of legal agreement enables both parties to avoid a prolonged trial under court and enables the defendant to avoid the risk of a guilty verdict at court, which can lead to a more severe sentence. Plea bargaining has been carried out as an intentional agreement that leaves the defendant and the prosecutor better off, in which the former
Despite all of that, questions may arise from the topic such as is it right to detain a person before trial just to have him to be presented on the day of trial in case he is deemed guilty or is it right for one to confiscate a suspect’s money (bail money) to be certain that he will pay for the fine later as part of his sentence? Such actions made are clear that it is violating the presumption of innocence as it was only ‘assumed’ that the person is indeed guilty and applying a pre – trial detention is based on the reliance of ‘double suspicion’ as such to the case of Sheldrake v DPP. [cite] The point is further discussed by Lord Bingham based on the case of Sheldrake v DPP, “The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right directed to that end. The Convention does not outlaw presumptions of fact or law but requires that these should be kept within reasonable limits and should not be arbitrary. It is open to states to define the constituent elements of a criminal offence, excluding the requirement of mens rea.
Confidentiality is a condition in which the participant’s identities are kept in confidence (McIntyre, 2005). Basically confidentiality is limited when the client poses a threat to another individual via violent behaviour or infringing on the individuals basic human rights (e.g. Anthony and other possible sexual partners in the future) (James & Gilliland, 2013). Informed consent is an agreement that is usually in written format (like a contract), that the client signs after being informed of confidentiality, and what the possible consequences are if the limitations have been broken (Wilson & MacLean, 2011). Thus by doing the confidentiality and informed consent in the pre-test counselling it would minimise the odds of the counsellor to mislead Thumi in any way to disclose any information that could be harmful towards herself, thus it will assist her in her decision making later on in the post-test