In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that such a bias would essentially break our justice system. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that victim rights should not trump criminal rights is the strongest position, the position supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that the Bill of Rights protects people accused of crimes, such a stance presumes guilt, and the accused has much more at stake than the victim. Accordingly, these reasons and opposing viewpoints will be discussed next.
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.
Retributivists claim that criminals deserve punishment in proportion to their crime. Retributivists give desert a central place but only to a latter sense of desert as a demerit, or what we might call retributivist desert. Someone is thought to have desert not merely on the account of his committing a wrongful act, but on the account of his committing illegal act. There are many actions that are wrong, but not punishable because they are not illegal act. Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking.
The most essential part of our judicial system is that it is based on the presumption that the accused is innocent unless proven guilty beyond doubt. Also it is better that ten guilty are held free than one innocent being falsely implicated in a case. Thus the burden of proof in a criminal case is very high. Circumstantial evidence is basically the evidence which is furnished not by direct testimony of an eye witness to the fact to be proved, but by relying on the fact or other auxiliary facts which can be relied upon as incompatible with any result other than truth of principal fact.
The main object of criminal law is to protect society against offenders and law-breakers. To fulfil this object law holds out threats of penalties to prospective lawbreakers and also make the actual offenders suffer the prescribed punishments for their crimes. Criminal law consists of both the substantive criminal law and the procedural criminal law. Substantive criminal law gives the definition of offences and also prescribes punishments for the same, while the procedural law prescribes the procedure to administer the substantive law. The principal statues which deals with administration of criminal justice in our country are criminal procedure code i.e. Crpc and Indian penal code i.e. Ipc and Indian evidence act,1872.
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 penalty for a crime must be one that creates the right amount of deterrence. The way to set the right amount is by estimating the benefit a criminal is set to gain from committing the said crime and setting a penalty and likelihood of getting caught that is more damaging to the criminal then what he stands to gain if he commits the crime. Since deterrence is a crucial part of the model, it would seem that it may be redundant or even harmful to punish someone if they committed a crime negligently since it is almost impossible
The willingness of the victim to commit an offence upon him or her makes the offender legally stronger. The consent of the victims whom the law intended to protect encourages the offender. Victim solicitation even more than victim’s consent, confers on the act a kind of legitimacy
An express statutory reversal on burden of proof is where the statute expressly places the burden of on the accused . Such statutes uses phrases such as “unless the contrary is proved” or “prove whereof shall rest with the defendant” . An example of such a provision can be seen in Section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which states, “Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be
There are three main theories of punishment: retributive, utilitarian, and restitution. Firstly, retributive or the just deserts punishment theory must be examined again. Under retributive or just deserts punishment, a person is judged only on what he or she has done. Under this theory, the Pre-Crime system is immoral because how can a person be punished for something he or she has never done. The Pre-Crime system punishes based on thought, impulse, and planning regardless of whether or not the act was actually committed.
RICO has advanced the understanding of crime in criminal occupations and has been able to advance their knowledge of illegal behavior. I also believe that in order for someone to be indicted under the RICO act they must have knowledge of crimes they are committing. In order for the defendant to be liable he or she should have mens rea to establish that the crime committed was thought out. This is important because if the defendant had no knowledge of a connection with any sort of conspiracy they cannot be considered as a conspirator. I think another reason for it to be unnecessary is because the individual must have at least two allegations on them of racketeering offenses in order to be qualified to be accused of RICO.
There is a legal duty to act positively, on anyone who holds public office, if harm upon the plaintiff is foreseeable. They have the burden of eliminating the risk of harm to the community. In this case, as Clint had previously committed serious crimes and was currently out on bail for a serious crime, Anne and Bernice’s concerns where not unreasonable, as there was strong chance of Clint causing harm to either or both of them. An act is wrongful usually only if it has some consequence.
These conclusions are not supported by the available data. Justice Stevens has also argued that the risk of error in capital cases may be greater than in other cases because the facts are often so disturbing that the interest in making sure the crime does not go unpunished may overcome residual doubt concerning the identity of the offender. The same could be said of any criminal penalty, including life without parole; there is no proof that in this regard the death penalty is distinctive. He also states: I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty" is
In order to convict a criminal, prosecutors are required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The most common criminal defenses fall under two categories, excuse and justification. An excuse is when a person admits to committing a criminal act but believes that he or she can’t be held responsible because there was no criminal content. Some excuses used in court today are; mental disorder, infancy (age), mistake of fact, mistake of law and automatism. In justification defenses, the accused admits to wrongdoing but argues that he or she should be freed from culpability or assessed reduced liability for the crime due to mitigating circumstances surrounding offense.