However, what if it were instead that we accepted a person is "guilty until proven innocent". In this case, we would have to go through every applicable law in the United States and prove that a person has not broken a single one of those laws to be truly innocent. This isn't only unreasonable, but almost impossible to go through every condition necessary to verify that a person is innocent. And with this reasoning, every person in the United States would be classified as "guilty," and we would almost never be able to prove otherwise. This analysis is very similar to how Karl Popper proposes we solve the problem of induction.
The sixth amendment provides more requirements for a fair trial in criminal cases. The accused person has the right to enjoy a speedy trial but that does not mean that the trial will be done within two days but rather means that, "The country or state cannot make the person sit in jail for a very long time, for example 5 years, while they wait for their trial. This would be very unfair to anyone who is not guilty. "; that was mentioned by the website Laws.com. This means that a person can not get punished for committing a crime the rest of his life, that would go against his right of pursuiting happiness.
The Sixth Amendment is part of the United States Bill of Rights and its clauses are related to criminal prosecutions. It states that every defendant has the right of speedy and public trial, impartial jury, to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to choose such in his favor and to have the aid of a layer in his defense. The right to an attorney’s assistance has been focused on two main issues throughout its development – the right to counsel and the right to an effective counsel. When the Constitution was adopted, courts in Britain did not appoint lawyers to defendants charged with felonies, opposite to those who were accused of misdemeanors. This practice was not executed by the American colonies and most of the original thirteen states gave defendants in all cases the right to have layers.
There is an appraise of 5.9 million individuals (as of 2016) with a crime conviction that will be banned from voting in the presidential decision (Toth). These individuals are incapable to vote, which is called disenfranchisement. Studies have demonstrated that states make up their claim laws on criminal disenfranchisement. As of now, four states disenfranchise for life those convicted of felonies, and seven states forever disenfranchise those with at least some kind of criminal convictions. Maine and Vermont are the only two states to permit those sentenced of violations to vote without confinements (Bernd).
In Miranda 's case, her lawyers argued that Miranda was unaware of her rights as a criminal defendant. This was taken to the ACLU which then was taken to the United States Supreme Court. The court found that Miranda 's fifth Amendment had indeed been violated. This case also infringed upon Miranda 's 5th Amendment right which imposes restrictions on the government 's prosecution of a person accused of a crime. It shows “... that no person be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case and that no person be subjected to a second trial foran offense for which he or she has been duly tried previously.”
District Court for the District of New Hampshire had become the first judge to go through the impeachment process. The cause of his impeachment was due to his mental instability and poor misconduct while on the bench (Turner). Other judges who have gotten impeached have either resigned from their position in hopes to keep their reputation clear or have been acquitted. Samuel Chase, the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States but later acquitted for induction his political bias in this court cases in 1805 (“Senate Prepares for Impeachment Trial”). In 1830, James H. Peck had been impeached on charges of abuse of the contempt power, which is power grated to the courts to “… punish persons who show contempt for the process, orders, or proceedings of that institution.
No one exceeds the law so much that they are exempt from punishment for committing a crime. The law and justice systems are here to keep us safe and someone could use their “mental illness” to escape incarceration and put others in danger. It would be unwise to let a gang leader go free from a life sentence in prison, because he was ruled insane, and he could still endanger someone. The Insanity Defense is rarely used in the United States and it would be wise to get rid of it altogether so, it can’t be misused by criminals looking for a way to escape imprisonment. The Insanity Defense should not be able to excuse someone for fair punishment for their
With this being said, there is good motive to charge Zuma, as there is a sound legal framework in place. However, as much as Mpshe has attempted to prosecute Zuma, no court case has been further instated. This serves as a problem for our judiciary, as Mpshe being competent in the field of criminal law, would not bring evidence before the court if it did not have substance. Adding to this, it should be noted that the president has already been charged for 748 cases of fraud and corruption. The unfortunate outcome is that the NPA does not have the powers to charge the president based on section 179 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
If the defendant pleads guilty, the jury service is not needed. In such a scenario, the judge has an easy time of giving a sentence as stipulated in the law. However, if the defendant pleads innocent, the jury service is required. The jury listens to the evidence and facts presented and makes decisions based on those facts while the judge makes decisions from the legal a perspective. Over the past years, there has been a heated debate on the significance of juries in petty cases.
The third obstacle was the ultra vires doctrine, under which courts would not hold corporations accountable for acts, such as crimes, that were not provided for in their charters. Finally, the fourth obstacle was courts' literal understanding of criminal procedure; for example, judges required the accused to be brought physically before the court. However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, the concept gradually evolved and various courts held that corporations that were obligated by their corporate charters to maintain public bridges or highways could be criminally charged if they failed to discharge their duties. Until the late twentieth century and early twenty first century, the law was disinclined to impose criminal liability on the corporations mainly on the basis that the corporations lacked the requisite mens rea or guilty mind commit an offence; and that corporations cannot be imprisoned. The basic principle of criminal liability is based on the Latin maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”.