Shaw rejects this perspective because minimalists believe that the purpose of criminal law is to accumulate and respect the rights of people, which means they do not agree with maximalist’s perspective on criminal law. Maximalists’ perspective is that the purpose of criminal law is not to rehabilitate, but rather punish convicts for their immoral actions. Shaw also rejects this perspective because punishment does not take future efforts of criminals to be morally sound into
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes. The counselor also judged that he should rely on the plea colloquy for evidence about respondent’s background and his claim of emotional stress. The counselor believed the plea colloquy provided sufficient information to the Court about these subjects. He also believed that by not introducing new evidence on these subjects, he prevented the State from cross-examining the respondent on his claim and from introducing its own psychiatric evidence. He also was successful in excluding other damaging evidence from the sentencing hearing, including the introduction of the respondent’s criminal history.
Well according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the matter of Superintendent v. Hill, “due process in this context requires only that there be some evidence to support the findings made in the disciplinary hearing (Cripe, pg. 216).” The decision based on “some evidence” such as testimony from the prison guard and copies of a written report is sufficient for me. Prison official should not have to be scrutinized for inmate’s actions. Inmates are in prison because they have committed a wrong to the community and deficiency in character.
According to criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/bribery.html, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 makes it unlawful for a United States citizen, as well as certain foreign issuers of securities, to pay a foreign official in order to obtain business with any person. Thus, if a judge or jury was persuaded or bribed to place you in jail, guilty or not, then that’s simply prejudiced. No one should bribe another to put a faultless citizen in jail. We should all stand together to prevent others from being treated unfairly in
Regardless of what is fair and what is not, the defendant has rights during trial. One of those rights under the 5th Amendment is the right against self incrimination and according to Winegar, the 6th Amendment provides a defendant the ability to testify on one’s behalf (2013). However, lack of testimony from a defendant can cause an interference with the jury or cloud their judgement because they were not previewed to what the defendant has to say. According to Hall, the jury is instructed not to guess or assume guilt because the defendant does not put on a defense. (2015) In my personal opinion, if a defendant chooses to testify I believe it should be conducted during pre trial or before a witness or victim can give their testimony.
This may result in wrongful convictions or acquittals and as a result, would severely undermine the efficacy of any justice system. People may start to lose trust in the justice system in meting out fair and impartial judgements, resulting in a total disregard of the justice system. In the contexts of crimes carrying the death penalty, jury tampering can have serious ramifications. The irreversible damage done to the accused’s family due to the wrongful convictions cannot be fixed with any sum of money. With Singapore’s strict anti-corruption stance, cases of corrupt judges would hence be rare.
Comey believes police officers have the right to be forceful when confronting a suspect. He also indicates that videos of police brutality should not be posted or distributed in any way. Not do only this sounds absurd, but it also sounds as though it is not significant if some of the people who are arrested are also brutally treated. If police officer can be abusive and treat their suspect roughly then they would be breaking Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. amend.
This has led to absolutely no prison advocacy. Despite politician’s best efforts, crime is here to stay. Funding prisons and jails is necessary, but no one seems to want to. American sends people to prison to forget about them, and to punish them. And rather than updating its attitudes on sentencing, policy makers are trying to come up with laws that are outdated, and unfit for modern