As a necessary corollary to this, it must be understood that the defense is only required to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case in order to secure acquittal. Now, in respect of heinous offences such as stalking and rape, it is understood that the burden of proof has been reversed in order to ensure a greater possibility of conviction. However, this cannot be allowed to negate the very basics of the trial itself. The standard of reasonable doubt exists for the protection of the accused. Implicit in it is the understanding that since it is the prosecution that brought the case, they must take the full responsibility of proving it in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime which they charged him
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 differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming
Crime and its causes are complex due to a number of various factors that may motivate offenders and furnish suitable opportunities. Crime is difficult to predict, solve and deter. Criminological theory and criminal justice
The prosecutor or the police having separate law to deal with their conduct may misuse their power and is likely to exceed their authority, which they are not entitled to. Supremacy of law and equal treatment of the law for all segments of the society is not entertained. (C, 1996) After a close analysis of the inquisitorial and adversarial system of justice l came to the conclusion that the systems have provided an interesting comparative insights. Those attempts reveal important contemporary goals of criminal procedure.
Cross-examination by the defense asks the jury to question what was done procedurally during the stop and arrest, to challenge the validity of scientific tests or to doubt the law enforcement officer’s competency or even integrity. The prosecutor’s cross-examination can be an effective tool to repair any damage that occurred in defense cross or direct testimony by bolstering the jury’s faith in the fairness of the prosecutor and officer and their search for truth. Many would argue that the practical purpose of cross-examination is simply to undermine or destroy direct testimony. However, the legal purpose of cross-examination is a good faith quest for ascertaining truth and the prosecutor should use it justly and legitimately. Cross examination of fact witnesses will differ from that of expert witnesses but a prosecutor’s goals remain the same.
If you are at the wrong place at the wrong time, you can be accused of aggravated assault. If you have domestic quarrels and your spouse would like to get back at you, you can also be accused of aggravated assault. For whatever circumstance it may be, you need legal council so you will be able to defend yourself in court in case a serious charge takes you there. If you have been accused of aggravated assault, then this article is for you. You need to know your rights and the implications that might be facing you in case you find yourself in such an unlucky position.
If proper steps are not taken an individual can be wrongfully convicted due to cognitive biases, institutional pressures, and normative features of the criminal justice system. For this reason, it is extremely important to take many factors into account when analyzing a case from the moment the individual went in for questioning till the moment the case is closed. Rightful steps must be made so that the presenting cognitive and physical biases do not cloud the judgment of the prosecutors or judges. For this reason, it is imperative that the criminal justice system has a comprehensive understanding of how tunnel vision can affect the system as a whole regarding criminal case
Evaluate the effectiveness of the ‘cardinal principles’ enunciated by Prof. Ian Dennis vis-à-vis reversal of burden onto the defendant in criminal cases. To what extend does it achieve it’s purpose? Introduction In Woolmington v DPP, Viscount Sankey LC laid down the golden thread rule (also known as concept of presumption of innocence) which presumed the defendant is innocence until proven guilty by the prosecution by proposed “Throughout the web of the English criminal law, one golden thread is always be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…” The prosecution bears the legal burden to prove the guilt of defendant beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases whereby the defendant bears the evidential burden
While we have a justice system that is based off laws and cases that come before, and there are also some cases that express the moral principles found in our societies for a case by case assesment. The idea that anyone who commits a crime, but is missing the ability to defer right from wrong shouldn’t be held to the same standards as someone who has a rational mind. For example, in “The Insanity Defense” the narrator talks about if a person is convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove two things; that the person engaged in a guilty act and that he or she had guilty intend. “But what about situations in which the person commits the act and intends to do so, but was suffering from a mental condition that impairs their ability to appreciate
Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime. Actus reus is the guilty deed or act and mens rea is the guilty state of mind.
The steps in entering a guilty plea is extremely important and the offender must understand the consequences of pleading guilty to a case. The Unites States Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea constitutes a conviction. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require judges to inform the defendant of the various rights he or she is surrendering by pleading guilty. Additionally, entering a guilty plea must be voluntary and not forced or result of any promises. There must be a factual basis to make sufficient inquiry for the plea.
This is certainly a conflicting issue. While it is fair to value the welfare of law abiding citizens over the welfare of convicted felons, placing restricting on felons presents the issue of those felons lacking the ability to become a contributing member of society. Like you mentioned, that can provide the push needed for them to return to crime rather than working towards a steady life of their own. Further research into the costs and benefits of such restrictions is necessary to determine whether these types of restrictions actually do benefit society overall like they intend to.