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. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities.
Eyewitnesses’ memories which constitute knowledge of the crime could be distorted or forgotten if is not retrieved at the right time and with appropriate methods (Stelfox, 2012: 90). As much as the
When approaching each case, criminalists utilize the factors related to the psychological theories that influence criminals rather than each individual’s traits. That way they are able to make the connections between intelligence, personality, learning and criminal behavior. Naturally each case is also analyzed based on the individual’s traits, however initially to narrow the possible population to decide on a suspect, the professionalists have to go by broader specifications. Using the psychological theories is useful to not only apprehend, prosecute and understand a criminal but also to treat him or her so that after and if they are released back among the general population, they would be able to integrate properly as normal citizens of
Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defence counsel in choosing between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. There are few ways to bargain with the prosecuting officers. For both the government and the defendant, the decision to enter into or not to enter into a plea bargain can be based on few things. One of them is the seriousness of the alleged crime.
It can be better explained by having a close look at individual criminals and their environment, culture, economic background or their social culture (Croall, 6). Additionally, crime is also related to the effects of rapid social and economic change (Durkheim qtd. in Croall). Due to the reason that individual decisions are made in a social context, crime becomes an issue due to the social, economic and cultural reasons rather than being just an individual choice or inheritance from parents. It is often suggested by some people that it is the individual offenders who commit crime based on their personal decision.
Should the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused? These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning victim rights. This is an important debate for people accused of a crime since an unbalanced justice system may lead to a false conviction. The two positions argue whether or not victim rights outweigh criminal rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that a victim's rights should have priority over the rights an accused criminal.
1 Introduction In respect of criminal capacity there is an ongoing dispute about the defence of criminal incapacity due to provocation or emotional stress. This debate revolves around the application of logic and legal principles versus that of policy considerations. 2 Criminal capacity This element of the crime is a purely subjective inquiry into the state of mind of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime and is based on the principle of individual autonomy.
The role of a criminal psychologist is not just to use their expertise to figure out the mind of a criminal, but it is also used for understanding, developing and improving the life of the people they deal with. When a person commits a crime that the police cannot fully understand or handle, they can call in the help of a criminal psychologist. Different methods of solving and understanding a situation can be used. Criminal psychologists are involved in many parts of the legal process, whether its interviews, assessments, therapy or prison life, they can have a huge input on a case.
When a crime is committed and an individual is caught in the act, there is a set process that one follows to adhere to the rules of the criminal justice system. This method can be simplified by looking at the common flow of events: (1) an individual is arrested, (2) individual is brought to court, (3) individual receives a punishment. Though it may appear that the way in which the criminal justice system functions is sufficient, many voice the concern that there are certain key players affected by crimes that are consistently disregarded. These players are otherwise known as the victims and the community. As a result, many have hypothesized a new approach to justice that incorporate all aspects of crime.
These events changed the perception of spies as gentleman 's play to a whole new meaning: the one that spies had to do all they could to obtain results. He had to kill Thomas to achieve his objectives. Sigmund plans were to get rid of all inconveniences, and Hugh Thomas was one. By killing Thomas, he married a rich widow and also assumed a new identity (20). His drive for money was huge.
The job I am going to discuss that is within the criminal justice system is a criminal profiler. For those who are unclear about what a career in criminal profiling entails, an author by the name of Brent Turvey evaluates the job clearly as follows, “a discipline that will necessitate the careful evaluation of physical evidence, collected and properly analyzed by a team of specialists from different areas, for the purpose of systematically reconstructing the crime scene, developing a strategy to assist in the capture of the offender, and thereafter aiding in the trial” (Fintzy, 2000, n.p.). This type of career generally requires a background in forensics and psychology. A criminal profiler is responsible for figuring out a suspect’s motivation for committing crime and creating a suspect profile. Therefore, criminal profilers are motivated to find the suspect, and also figure out why crime was committed.
Based on my knowledge on conspiracy I believe that the RICO act is necessary but can also be not useful depending how the defendant pleads his case. Conspiracy is defined as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. I think the RICO act is necessary because part of me believes that organizations would continue to get away with heinous crimes if the act was non-existing. Another reason to I believe RICO is necessary is because it has been important to up and coming laws. RICO has led to revitalizing the interest in civil punishment.
Both sides will carefully weigh the strength of their case and decide whether it is prudent to go to trial. The prosecution may also consider the publicity surrounding the case and whether there is public pressure to prosecute that particular defendant to the full extent of the law. The defense will consider the individual defendant’s desire to go to trial and the seriousness of the potential sentence. The Pros of Plea Bargaining
Suspects commit crimes and often the victims are left wondering why the suspect’s rights seem to be more important than those of the victim. It does seem like an unfair game, the bully gets afforded everything, the victim left to suffer. In order for the justice system of the United States to stay the most balanced and civil rights friendly system in the world; suspects’ rights have to be respected and guarded so chaos doesn’t take over. Police officers through the years have gotten better with training and experience, guidance by prosecutors, and increased motivations to “do the right thing” to ensure suspects are processed correctly, and interrogated within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution. Seeing a conviction through to the end, the suspect afforded all protections under the law, and the victims seeing closure is the ultimate testament to how far law enforcement interrogations have come since Miranda.
I think that the court systems should have a little more power when it comes to choosing due process or criminal control. If the person is a first time offender and it is a small crime then I think they should have the right to defend themselves. On the other hand if the person is being prosecuted for the second or more time for the same type of offense or if it was an offense that is very bad then I feel that they need to be punished for the crimes that they have committed. I do believe that there should be balance because not all court cases need to be dealt with to the extreme of punishments but then there are some cases and individuals that never seem to learn so they need to be dealt with in a different way to deter them and others from committing those same