It is an invitation to deceive and impede ourselves, to follow false reasoning and toddlers, insisting that the addicts should die, insisting that they do not need a thorough process because they have just started things that should not be. That if the killings of "drug users and drug pusher" will certainly be addressed by mercenary police and abusive guards. With the mistakes and the burdens of the lives of those who are just bad, it's okay because, the "war on drugs" that the president will enforce is good but the truth is that we just believe that people who are guilty will never change, those people with bad consciences do not need to
Schoenborn not criminally responsible for the murder of his children is undisputable and an appropriate decision based on the evidence and the administration’s objectives. The actus reus of the case cannot be disputed, as the accused confessed to the crime and both the defence and the crown agree that Mr. Schoenborn killed his children. However, the mental element of the crime is arguable, as the possibility of Mr. Schoenborn being in a psychotic state during the time of the offence is high. The evidence to support the fact that he did not form the mens rea of the crime can be derived from his history of mental illness as well as the evidence given by Ms. Clarke that he was a good and caring father. This demonstrates that he greatly cared for his children and their safety but was prone to having psychotic episodes that muddled his mind and led him to commit dangerous and unusual acts.
As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go. It indicates that if the court didn’t have any evidence against a criminal and the court let him go and later, police find evidence against criminals so they can’t arrest that person again. It shows to us that the seventh amendment is very important and helpful. The 8th Amendment is important to all people that live in the United States. First, the 8th Amendment helps the courts to take a decision.
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 also allows the accused person to know the cause of accusation and his accuser, and that leads to the second ideal which is opportunity or chance to defend oneself or even ask a lawyer to defend
In Kemp (1957), Devlin J affirmed that the law is concerned with the mind rather than the brain and this is a legal term rather than a medical term. This lead to the conviction of epileptics (Sullivan 1984), sleepwalking (Burgess 1911) and hyperglycaemia (Hennessy 1985). However, this rule had been criticised as they are not actually suffering from a mental disorder. The English Law however, group such people in the same category as criminal like serial killers or psychopaths. Secondly, the defendant must show that he do not know ‘the nature and quality of the act he was doing’.
Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society. However, if the was a law to be passed to make polyandry legal, Devlin would have disagree with this because once it has been made legal it will drive and encourage many to conduct this immoral act. Devlin did not say that every immoral act is to be prohibited. Devlin used the jury box morality of average right minded citizens where moral standards of behaviour are the standards of behaviour of a reasonable man. Will a reasonable man think the act of polyandry as something good and to be done?
They do not get the right to vote, why should they be able to break the law whenever they please to have it function when it benefits them? The moment they break the law, it should no longer be able to be used to their advantage. However, it has been stated that some of those prisoners are innocent and do not deserve to be cut off from the world 's biggest decision involving citizens. As a result of this it has been impossible to take a decision on this matter, can we really put the future of multiple countries into jeopardy for a small amount of the population, which claims to be innocent which may or may not be true? Even if innocents should get the right to vote, this decision is too important to risk a disaster to make a minuscule amount of the population prosper.
They just become more violent or develop mental illnesses such as depression or anxiety. It does not help. Juveniles who commit crimes should be given shorter sentences instead of life in prison so they can actually recover and improve their
"The burden of proof of provocation and self-defence lies on the accused person sees Gabriel v. State (1989) col. 22 NSCC pt. 111 p. 349 by section 286 of the Criminal Code when a person is unlawfully assaulted and he did not provoke the assault the law expects him to defend himself. He is expected to use such force on his assailant as would be reasonable to make an effective defence. For example if A slaps B and B defends himself by shooting A with a gun, that would be a disproportionate response to an unprovoked assault. The defence must not be intended to cause death or grievous harm.
Putting an addict in jail with groups and killers is not going to help them and doubtlessly will bring on additional mischief and difficulties throughout their life. Doing drugs obviously isn 't something to be thankful for yet in the meantime its not the same as killing or taking things. So the treatment is better than punishment for drugs addiction problem. It’s something the government, law enforcement or non-government organization (NGO) need to tackle and find the best solution for