He said that it is impossible for him to declare Pi innocent.The more he examines this case and think about it, the more deeply he become involved and making his mind entangled.He found that every reason to declare him innocent was balanced by a reason to prove him guilty. He withdraws from the case making no decision. Justice Keen He puts two questions before the Court. First that whether executive clemency should be extended to these defendants if the conviction is affirmed and second that of deciding whether what these men did was "right" or "wrong," "wicked" or "good." He says "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.
Why do we say so? We say so, because we believe that if you kill someone who did something wrong then you made yourself like a criminal too. You will just turn yourself into a murderer instead of being a justice provider. In conquering justice for victim, other people does not have the right to punish the suspect in their own hands. Let’s say that it’s part of their law to give penalty in killing or taking man’s life.
Why are people always convicted on something they only have circumstantial evidence on? I believe that there is many more ways for a jury to find out if a person is guilty or not and circumstantial evidence is one of the main things they use. Most of the time people get blamed for something they didn’t do and they don’t even have all the evidence to prove that one is guilty. So then they end up going to jail for a crime they did not commit. I don’t believe a person should be convicted of a crime based only on circumstantial evidence because I don’t think it’s fair for the victim.
Some examples of when threats and promises may make a guilty plea involuntary include situations when: A defendant’s attorney threatens withdraw as counsel and a family member threatens to withdraw bail if he doesn’t plead guilty The prosecution knows that it doesn’t have probable cause to believe that a defendant actually committed a crime but threatens to prosecute him unless he pleads guilty The prosecution threatens to prosecute a member of the defendant’s family, even though it doesn’t have probable cause to believe that the family member committed a crime, unless the defendant pleads guilty The prosecution promises the defendant that he’ll get a certain sentence or punishment if he pleads guilty but the prosecution knows or has a good reason to believe that the judge won’t give the defendant the promised sentence There are many threats and promises, however, that won’t make a plea involuntary. For
Many people believe that it is cruel to charge juveniles with life sentences but, many like myself believe that if they committed the crime they should actually go to prison and serve life. People say that it’s not right to do that because we may not know what their situation may be or they probably didn't know what they were doing but, they obviously had a plan they just didn't out of nowhere just go and kill that person. The supreme court ruled in 2012 that juveniles could not be sentenced to life in prison because it violated the eighth amendment. In my opinion, this isn't cruel something that would be cruel, would be giving juveniles the death penalty that is called being cruel. I agree with the four justices, that strongly disagreed, I think it’s right because why should a juvenile that was actually proven to committing be given a second chance to go out into the real world sure they could have changed but, what if they are just saying that to get out.
As stated in the Marshall Inquiry there is a list of findings that the commissioners developed that proved that Marshall was wrongfully convicted. “Marshall was Native which was a factor in his wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Marshall did tell the truth about the events when first interviewed by the police about the stabbing but later in the trial being accused of perjury when he made his testimony. Immediate police response and the investigation done by MacIntyre were inadequate, incompetent, and unprofessional. MacIntyre without any evidence made Marshall the main suspect and accepted only evidence that supported that theory.
If he confesses he could get a lighter prison sentence. A person would assume that an innocent man would never take up that offer, however, when an innocent man is put in a situation where he is mentally exhausted, has been told that there is evidence against him and honestly believes that he is going to jail, he may confess in the attempt to make his impending doom a little less
Of course, many people think Adnan Syed is guilty of murdering Hae by contradicting himself, by saying, “I am in here for my own mistakes.” He might have been on the edge of confessing his guilt until Sarah caught this and asked what he meant, and quickly recovers from his mistake. Adnan also slips his tongue by saying that he wants people to only look at the evidence, and not his personality. If I were convicted of a crime I would certainly like to have my personality be looked at, if I were innocent. So they could see what good I have done. Still people hold on to these tiny mistakes but do not take in count of the clear evidence that shows Adnan 's innocence.
Atticus goes against the grain of the majority that would rather see Tom proven guilty for a crime he did not even commit. He is willing to be an individual amidst town pressure to be otherwise. Perhaps the most valuable quote illustrating individualism and belonging is again
It is our time to change now; make the world understand that for every wrong action there will be a punishment. Meredith is innocent; the punishment must go to the real criminal. Do not convict Meredith McCartney. We will find the guilty assassin and when it happens the truth will come out just as Winston Churchill claimed: “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it
282) Since Texas has a process for criminal law, some steps are followed before a trail is declared. First, there is usually a person who commits a misdemeanor or felony, and law enforcement decides to charge the suspect with a crime. Once a charge has been filed against an individual then a grand jury will determine if there is sufficient evidence to hand down an indictment against a suspect. If there is, then usually the defendant goes to trial. However, a defendant might accept a plea bargain from the prosecution before trial, because the evidence against them is overwhelming.
It was not only the system that had flaws but also the people on the board. The prosecutors "opposed testing, arguing that it would make no difference" whether or not those being convicted got DNA tested (Garrett 1). Confessions was one of the causes that often led to the downfall of those innocently convicted. In the case of Jeffrey Deskovic, the police officer was supposed to conduct the polygraph examination. The detective for this case explained that he did not actually conduct the examination but only tested "Deskovic 's truthfulness" and to "get
They would learn for the future. If they were not harshly punished and tried for adult consequences, they may not learn and take a life again which leads to the argument, “if you put the kid in prison, you’re taking his future, and everything he has going good for him away”. This concern has an obvious response. Nathaniel Abraham not only murdered and took a life and future that wasn’t his, but this is permanent. If he spends a decent portion of his life in prison, that may only be temporary.
There have even been some states which the lower courts have ruled that using fake evidence to obtain confession is a violation of the suspect’s rights (Florida v. Cayward) (Pollock, 2014, p. 156). The other unethical response to telling the suspect that the death penalty will be taken off the table. This is an area that the homicide detective has no control over. Only the prosecutor can give this type of deal with the suspect and his attorney. The benefits in taking the unethical response is getting the confession, however, is this confession an actual true confession or just a confession from fear.
First of all, Danforth used various court techniques that were unjust in the eyes of most of the people in Salem. He created his own way of controlling the courts that was different from the rest of the colonies. For example, Danforth believed in the idea of guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite of what it is today. He believes that if a person is accused then they are guilty until there is evidence to prove their innocence. Today, people are innocent until proven guilty.