The Fourth Amendment is “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” In other words, it is against the law for police to search any person without probable cause and an issued warrant. (Cartoon Surveillance) This protects the privacy of the innocent people that may not be considered guilty. However, giving the people a right to a warrant is only giving them an advantage, while the police and the government have a disadvantage. Issuing warrants take away time and privilege for police. Needing a warrant may unable police to some investigations as well.
Basically, defendants accused of a crime can acknowledge that they committed the crime but argue that they are not responsible for it because of their mental illness, by pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity." The insanity defense is part of a class
In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes. The counselor also judged that he should rely on the plea colloquy for evidence about respondent’s background and his claim of emotional stress. The counselor believed the plea colloquy provided sufficient information to the Court about these subjects. He also believed that by not introducing new evidence on these subjects, he prevented the State from cross-examining the respondent on his claim and from introducing its own psychiatric evidence. He also was successful in excluding other damaging evidence from the sentencing hearing, including the introduction of the respondent’s criminal history.
Critics of the insanity plea often contend that a crime is still a crime, and it does not matter who committed it, sane or insane. Opponents of this defense also question, “They are criminals, so who cares if they are sent away?” In truth, it is still a crime, however, this crime cannot be considered guilty, if the defendant had no criminal intent to do so. When dealing with a person who is mentally incapable to comprehend and do certain things, one must analyze their thought process. Some people are eminently schizophrenic, and believe they are doing the world a favor by “eliminating” another individual. They believe that their “target” is going to do wrong to the world, another person, or themselves.
Based upon my research, the exclusionary rule should not apply to an illegal arrest. The exclusionary rule was a court created deterrent and remedy, to keep law enforcement from violating the Fourth Amendment when conducting searches and seizures ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). It is mainly used to exclude incriminating evidence that was gathered illegally to be introduced into the court as evidence against a person. The rule was developed to give individual’s rights and civil liberties the maximum protection from improper conduct and procedures from law enforcement ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule.
Someone under terrible and extreme issues may not have the ability to handle the unfair and harsh punishments given to them. Some people believe the mental illness should only be taken into consideration when the time of sentencing presents. This shows how some states chose to abolish the insanity defense and replace it with the GBMI, which carries a penalty of crime. The GBMI allows the time of imprisonment to become varied; the defendant can prove he or she no longer classifies as mentally ill after the treatment in order to have freedom from jail (Semaje). This is especially important to promote the safety of the public, for the defendant’s rights and society.
Self-deception and Sartre’s view of psychoanalysis on the conscious and unconscious mind tie together due to it all being a lie but seen as a reality in the host’s point of view. “To escape from these difficulties people gladly have recourse to the unconscious” (Sartre 303). These two concepts are relatable since in self-deception the person decides to lie to himself in order to escape his difficulties, but psychoanalysis takes it a different direction and instead say that the person puts it into their unconscious mind where one would have difficulties retrieving it from. “There is truth in the activities of the deceiver; if the deceived could reattach them to the situation where the deceiver establishes himself to his project of the lie…” (Sartre 303). The person does not generally forget about the lie when putting it into their unconscious mind but instead puts it aside so they would not remember about it unless it is brought up or something relatable occurs and jogs their memory of the event or the
Another factor is having to prove the motivation for the crime. A jury, lawyer, or a judge will not be able to know exactly what the person was thinking during the time the criminal committed the crime. Only the criminal will know his intent. This means a lawyer is unable to “prove” the intent of the criminal, which leads to no other form of punishment than a criminal with no intent. If a criminal was found of prejudicial motivation, it is “unconstitutional to punish him for it” because the reason of punishment violates the First Amendment
Memory is the process in which information is encoded stored and retrieved from our brain. However, memory can also be so utterly manipulated ultimately making it useless. Memory can be constructive and reconstructed. A common misconception is memory works like a tape recorder. You can rewind and play back parts you want to remember.
As mentioned before, entropy is a form of movement in its natural state, meaning that memory requires some movement that enforces a significant amount of energy. Leonard Shelby, who suffers from anterograde amnesia, is trapped inside a constant trap of false memories. A false memory is an apparent belief of an event that did not necessarily occur, and the mind only produces it. Leonard’s brain creates false interpretations about events. By doing so, his memory creates an apparent recollection of a particular event and twists its actual past.
In reality, and type of evidence used in a criminal case should be physical. Memories are not a form of physical evidence and therefor should not be used. The use of physical evidence in criminal cases has a far better chance of convicting the true criminal, verses using memories or thoughts as evidence, there is no way to back up the evidence if it is based off of a memory. There have been a numerous amount of cases that have been dismissed due to the jury not believing in the repressed memories. It’s impossible to have a strong case when the jurors do not even believe the information given to
301). The accused right under section 8 of the Charter in R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R. 301 was violated; however, it was not as a result of the throat hold. The charter violation was on the basis of the unlawful search of the resident without a search warrant, even though the throat hold has taken place. However, it was concluded that the evidence would not affect the fairness of the trial and they should be admitted (R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R.
But with the insanity plea, the accused have a chance in defending themselves. Stating that they are suffering from a mental disorder, and because of that, they have done things that are against the law. In conclusion people that are mentally ill should have the right to chose the insanity defense, it wouldn’t be fair to just throw them into a prison when they can get a much needed treatment, putting them into a prison can harm them and the prison. Just because the insanity testimony isn’t used a lot doesn’t mean it isn’t an actual issue, so we should keep
Diminished culpability refers that the juvenile offenders have less understanding of their wrongdoings and, therefore, should not be punish for their actions. I disagree with how supreme court are using this line of thinking because juvenile offenders know what they are doing, but sometimes does not carry the remorse like regular children. Sometimes, a violent juvenile offenders are not influence by the enviroment, but just carry it in their genes.
Researchers must study the effects on human behavior behind EM technology. Although GIS mapping is tries to effectively exclude sex offenders in SRZ, GIS goes beyond its parameters of rehabilitation into no longer punishment, cruel and unusual. GIS serves for example, genocide or (completely excluding a class). A major concern in determining cost efficacy to EM is that offenders need to understand the fees and fines associated with EM is not enough to finance EM costs, for this reason alone EM is not effectively being