CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING A CLEAR DEFINITION WITH ITS CORRESPONDING ELEMENTS FOR THE CRIME OF UNJUST VEXATION Substantially, defining the crime of unjust Vexation with corresponding elements would bar any challenges against its constitutionality based on the grounds mentioned in Chapter V of this paper. Procedurally, defining the crime of Unjust Vexation with corresponding elements will also help both the prosecution and the accused avail of several procedures recognized under our criminal procedure, such as: Plea Bargaining The rule on the provisions on Pre –Trial indicates that plea bargaining is one of the matters to be considered during the pre-trial stage, a proceeding conducted before the trial. “Rule 116, Sec. 2: Plea of
Restrictions on notice and preparation To start with, most criminal defendants were put in prison pending trial, which left them with no time to prepare for trial (Helmholz, 1997, p. 90). This was especially harsh because the accused had no lawyer to prepare and advice him accordingly before the trial began. With no means to summon unwilling witnesses to testify for him, the chances of an unfair conviction were very
In R v Bournemouth Justices, ex parte Cross, Griffin and Pamment  , the point of issue was whether conditions could be imposed on bail for a non-imprisonable offences. The defendants were released on bail on condition that they did not attend any hunt meeting in England and Wales before their next appearance. Following this incident they were arrested again for breach of this condition and remanded in custody. The Divisional Court stated that the condition had been validly imposed. Pamment indicated that in certain circumstances he would intervene to prevent a hunt being carried on illegally and that was taken by the justices as a refusal to agree to the imposition of the condition.
When print sources describe a suspect as a devil, it may sharpen the debate over sexual offence cases. However, Matravers (2013) suggests that the government may manipulate public fears to strengthen its power and position against offenders, and therefore it is not in government interest to take measures against the aforementioned bias. However, he maintains that the law has a responsibility to deal with public fears and sensitive media coverage. In this situation, defendant anonymity should be considered for defendants as victims in sexual offence cases. Without anonymity, the public may not give appropriate attention to defendant issues aside the crime
When you do any of the above, you will be considered to be in contempt of court and you will be subject to a bench warrant. You might also be subject to probation violations, county jail or state prison sentences, enhanced fines and/or a suspension on your drivers’ license. Judges also issue bench warrants for people who have been indicted by a grand jury. In such cases, the judge will issue
Alan Greenblatt, states in his article “Free Speech at Risk” that, “It should continue to fall upon the press to ensure that the standards it embraces are of the highest order of professionalism and integrity. What is required is not state control of statutory regulation. But the press must be held accountable for egregious abuses of its own privileged position within a democracy.” Most journalists strive to exercise their freedom to publish the news in a responsible and ethical manner. Although journalists are free to publish any information they desire this does not mean they cannot be exempt from liability for what they publish. If a journalist publishes false information about a person they can be sued for libel.
In the Davis case, the Court augmented the exception and made the exclusionary guideline inapplicable when police unbiased and sensibly depending on trying to redraft a point of reference. By setting up another special case, the Court made another inquiry for Fourth Amendment law advancement. Laura Collins states, "If and when litigants can challenge unfavorable Fourth Amendment points of reference in criminal cases." Now, criminals have no chance of challenging an unreasonable search below the Supreme Court in the federal court system.
My final recommendation is that, if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court must make the order unless the court is satisfied that the order is not in the interests of justice which can be seen under section 118 of Western Australia’s the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. In conclusion, I believe the amendment to the jury system provides an incredibly effective delivery of justice while still maintaining the accused’s right of presumption of innocence and right to a trial by jury referred to by Justice
While the private media was often heavily criticized. Noticeably this lead to the dwindling of private independent media. State funding was only given to those who were pro-government, certainly many other media channels followed and conformed to the state commands. More direct abuses of the law were the harassment of independent medias. Fines were imposed simply based on allegations and no solid evidences.
Circumstantial evidence can be fully apprehended if it is compared in context of direct evidence. It is a type of evidence which is simply direct evidence applied indirectly. The whole discussion brings us back to the most fundamental question i.e. whether the circumstantial evidence can be used as sole basis of conviction or not. The fact cannot be denied that circumstantial evidence plays a pivotal role in a criminal case.