As a matter of fact, the 44th count was dismissed as inadequate by the lower court in its instruction to the jury. However, they did instruct the jury that "Before you can find the defendants guilty you must be certain of his guilt as charged on the counts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt." Ironically, the lower court then prepped the jury extensively on the principle of reasonable doubt and how it relates to evidence (Knappman, Edward W). By and large, the appeal of the case to the Supreme Court was rooted in part on the lower court 's refusal to allow the 44th count. Ultimately, their task was to decide whether the lower court had violated the defendants ' rights by not instructing the jury on the presumption of innocence, assuming that reasonable doubt was fundamentally the same as presumption of innocence.
While no legal case for holding an individual liable for failing to vaccinate a child exists (that is known of), a case can be made for charging an individual for criminal liability under criminal negligent homicide. This was the charge given to Monica in the Law and Order episode. While Monica was found not guilty, Caplan has identified that in theory, an individual can be held liable (civil or criminal) for the death of another even under “state law permitting exemptions” (2012, 610). Although legal consequences are an option for non-complying individuals, as I have said, mandatory vaccination should be the last option for increasing vaccinations. We should also think about whether there are other ways for enforcing mandatory vaccination laws besides looking at criminal or civil liability (e.g.
It points out that the continued prevalence of this section is proving to be counterproductive to the cause of preventing suicide in India. Those who fail to succeed in committing suicide do not seek medical assistance due to the fear of being arrested and penalized. In fact, the Commission recognizes that a suicide is a “cry for help”. And those who attempt suicide need extensive and prolonged psycho-social care, and a decriminalization of the draconian legislation will not lead to an increase in mortality
On the other hand, diminished capacity is the concept that comes from the idea that certain mental disorders may reduce an offenders’ culpability. Diminished capacity is closely related to the insanity defense but does not consider the offender to be legally insane. A successful defense sees the offender as guilty but usually result in a mitigated punishment. The Texas Penal Code does not consider diminished capacity as an affirmative defense but instead uses the defense during the prosecution phase once the defendant has been found guilty. Diminished capacity includes an array of mental disorders varying from depression to schizophrenia.
Expert testimony established that the patient would have survived given proper treatment. Furthermore, the court stated that when the defendant’s negligent action or inaction has terminated a person’s chance of survival, the defendant cannot then raise conjectures of what may have or may not have happened. As such, the court repealed the decision in Cooper v. Sisters of Charity, because of it’s all-or-nothing approach. Furthermore, the State of Ohio has decided to follow the rest of the county with the less harsh standard of the loss-of-chance theory. The medical advances are meaningless unless early detection is practiced diligently by those in health care.
What will be the affect on society in exploiting the vulnerability and desperation of a drug-addict? What happens to those patients who are not seeking permanent birth control as a means of preventing reproduction but for the cash, $200? In the circumstances, who is liable for the damages should the procedure fail the purpose of birth control? As according to the case of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), and Mr. Justice Homes affirmed to “prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind”, and the court would promote the best interests of the individual by means of detailed procedural requirements and would not sterilize individuals or groups for the supposed “good of society” (Harris, 2008, p. 266). With due respect, it is illegal to promote long-term or permanent birth control to the specific groups or individuals for the supposed good of society.
However, this very thinking contradicts our justice system that believes a defendant is “innocent until proven guilty,” by basically saying that justice doesn’t even pertain to capital punishment. You can’t say justice is being served and the person is innocent until proven guilty when you have the wrong person sitting in their cell on death row. Still, proponents believe our justice system should be principled on the proverb “an eye for an eye.” However, Byler goes on to argue, “Nobody advocates punishing rapists with rape or molesting molesters, yet the death penalty is deemed an appropriate response to violent crime” (Byler). And so opponents of the death penalty argue: Why can’t
The M'Naughten rule states that the defendant is deemed insane if he or she was incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act that he was performing or if he or she did not know what he was doing was wrong. In the Model Penal Code test, the offender is found not guilty by reason of insanity if he or she at the time of the incident is incapable of appreciating the criminality of his conduct, or if he or she was not able to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. In both tests, comprehensive and thorough medical evaluation is needed. Medical health professionals are also required to testify as to the defendant's condition. Moreover, the more successful bids for an insanity plea generally involve persons with past history of mental illness.
The eighth amendment of the United States constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (“Human Rights”). The clause about “cruel and unusual punishment” appears the most contentious phrase because in some ways the definition seems unclear. Not only does the subject matter appear debatable, but the definition of “torture” itself. The two main definitions of torture are: “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purpose as obtaining from him or her information of a confession" or “excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems” (Welna). The controversy derived
If the criminal process’s disciplinary is effective to prevent crime. The crime control theory would result in the state official is likely to violate the freedom of the people easily. The state official is authorized to use the extensive compulsory legal in order to effectively prevent crime. The result is that the court does not agree to hear evidence obtained illegally that will not appear at all or are very sparse. The court will hold the value of the evidence rather than to relinquish valuable witness.
One primary legislative cause of the difficulties in prosecuting police is the 1986 the United States supreme courts case, Tennessee v. Garner, which did not allows usages of deadly force by an officer unless "the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but the rhetorically vague term "good-faith belief" allowed an objective reason to kill and created a barrier in proving an officer is guilty in court system. While this old legislative piece accounts the difficulties in prosecuting police, the traditional unspoken rule of police officers not to report against colleagues cause corruption in the process of prosecution which is another source of
Although the courts have sometimes recognized a value in consistency,they have nevertheless made it clear that consistency is not a paramount constitutional value in structure of the criminal justice system.The law tolerates inconsistent verdicts.22 The Supreme Court has held that if a single fact finder, whether jury or judge, returns a verdict that is internally inconsistent, the conviction may stand.23 For example, the jury may acquit a defendant of a narcotics offense, but it may convict the defendant of using the telephone to commit that offense. The conviction is inconsistent with the acquittal but will stand despite that inconsistency. Similarly, if either a single fact finder or separate fact finders acquit one defendant of a crime
Justice Stevens’s majority opinion in this case appeals to Dworkin’s method, while Justice Kennedy’s reasoning would be endorsed by Hart. Dissenting opinions by Justice Thomas and Justice O’Connor use Justice Scalia’s version of textualism to come to a conclusion. Justice Steven’s majority opinion was wrong to decide this case in the way it did for various reasons. He selectively ignores precedents that are damaging to the argument he is trying to build and misinterprets some of the precedents he does choose to use. Second both Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy erroneously refused to recognize the fundamental
Justice Thurgood Marshall objected the Court’s ruling stating that if Americans were more knowledgeable, they would conclude the death penalty as unbefitting to the situation. Justice William Brennan dissented on moral grounds, saying the death penalty is intolerable (“Gregg v. Georgia”, Casebriefs). This landmark Supreme Court case clarified what is considered cruel and unusual punishment for many future verdicts to