Burden Of Proof In Criminal Law

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.

However, there is already protection in place for instances like this. If the courts consider that identifying a rape suspect or defendant would indirectly identify the victim, the courts will not identify the

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.

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.

Giving detailed information, and tell the authorities what Lora said about the sexual abuse as well. What are the possible outcomes of the different options? #1) Lora can choose to take your advice and tell or she could choose to keep quiet.

Children have a right to get justice as such their evidence is very essential to protect their rights and interests guaranteed by law, against the offender. Earlier, the law in the United States, U.K, Australia and India has taken restrictive use of evidence of child witnesses and regarded them inherently not reliable. When children have been permitted to testify, they have done so on the basis of what is told to them by somebody else. These suspicions about the reliability of child witnesses are seen in the competency requirement and the requirement for corroboration still in existence in various countries.

The State and Central Governments have powers to commute death sentences after their final judicial confirmation. This power, unlike judicial power, is of the widest amplitude and not circumscribed, except that its exercise must be bona fide. Issues often alien and irrelevant to legal adjudication – morality, ethics, public good, and policy considerations are intrinsically appropriate to the exercise of clemency powers. These powers exist because in appropriate cases the strict requirements of law need to be tempered and departed from to reach a truly just outcome in its widest sense.

It is essential to state that which shifts is the evidential burden and it has to be proved on a balance of probabilities. The above details can be appreciated in the case of Attorney General v Lyampali and Liso in which the accused persons had to prove on a balance of probabilities that they had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for “possessing offensive weapons in a public place”, elements which had been proved by the prosecution. Having considered the presumption of innocence as guaranteed under the constitution and the extent to which it is afforded protection, it is pertinent to consider the right contained and guaranteed under article 18(7) of the Constitution, which is to be discussed under the heading below. 2.

This presumption protects the liberty of every individuals including the accused. In civil cases, the burden falls on the claimant to prove on the balance of probabilities whereas in criminal cases, the legal burden falls on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas for defences such as provocation (Mancini v DPP ), self-defence (Rv Lobell ), duress (R v Gill ), non-insane automatism (Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland ) and alibi, the accused has an evidential burden to adduce evidence. Once the defence is valid, the burden is then falls on the prosecution to negative the defence beyond a reasonable

A police officer can test a theory to determine if it is a viable explanation of a phenomenon by developing and statistically verifying a conjecture concerning the relationship between the variables. However, because human knowledge is limited, hypotheses cannot actually be proved true (Shields, 2007). For example, we will never know for sure if any of the many extraneous variables have impacted a particular relationship between known variables ( a person may appear to have committed a crime, but appearances can be deceiving). However, we can demonstrate that relationships do not exist between variables (the person was already dead at the time of the crime and could not have committed the crime).

David, I agree with many points in your discussion board. Prosecutors and Defendants both take an oath that anything they present to the court is proven to be true. The integrity of the attorneys is a key role in the law aspect of criminal justice. When a prosecutor brings false evidence is brought to the court room then individuals have the chance of receiving a sentence they are not guilty for. While if an officer violates a convicted individuals rights and the defense does not present the violation in the trial, then this individual was misrepresented and both the defense attorney and officer should be punished.

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.

1. The role of the criminal prosecutor is to prove that that defendant is truly guilty. It is there job to look at all the evidence that is available and use that evidence to show why it is true that that person committed the crime so that they are prosecuted the way that they need to be. The job of the criminal defense attorney is to look at all the evidence that the prosecutor is bringing forth and to show why that evidence is not reliable or does not have any proof that it is linked to the person being accused of the crimes. It is their job to try to keep the accused person from being sentenced.

Memories are not a form of physical evidence and therefor should not be used. The use of physical evidence in criminal cases has a far better chance of convicting the true criminal, verses using memories or thoughts as evidence, there is no way to back up the evidence if it is based off of a memory. There have been a numerous amount of cases that have been dismissed due to the jury not believing in the repressed memories. It’s impossible to have a strong case when the jurors do not even believe the information given to

Stare Decisis Examining Hofsherier’s equal protection analysis the majority in Johnson not only held that the analysis was wrong but also concluded that stare decisis did not compelled to court to follow Hofsheier as precedent. In addition, Johnson indicated that Hofsheier’s analysis was faulty, which resulted in a number of sex crimes against minors. The Court referred to these “broad consequences” as the reason why stare decisis should not be allowed in order to correct an error in our constitutional jurisprudence. Stare decisis is one of the most important doctrines for the legal system.