character, he would find a way to defend this, a perfect example of this was when the prosecutor highlighted Timmy’s lack of attendance and constant tardiness, the defendant’s lawyer responded to that by asking the witness whether there were any signs of abuse knowing very well that there weren’t, as if there were such signs she would have expressed that observation during the prosecutor’s questioning. The defendant’s lawyer knew this would help give the judge and jury a better image of Michelle, in the sense that while she might not have been an organized mother she did not seem harmful. The prosecutor’s intentions were clearly to show that Michelle was not only an irresponsible parent, but a very unorganized person and show that …show more content…
However, the roots of the tree are far apart therefore they could easily be on the neighbor’s property line. In order to come to a just ruling, they pulled out the tree, when this was done, it was clear that the tree was on Sarah’s side therefore she was not trespassing or stealing. The point of this case was made through the technicalities, the little details, the issue wasn’t where the tree was, it was about the injustice and how to prove that it was in fact injustice. This is very similar to the observed Lodzinski case, as the case was not about the accused’s failure to read the time and constant tardiness or absence, it was about the injustice that happened to Timmy and all legal systems manage to use this details in order to help correct the …show more content…
The discussion and reading assignment in the class suggested that we have a specific way of punishing criminal offenders and there are four purposes behind this system. The first purpose, retribution, to make sure that the offender, who in this case is Michelle Lodzinski pays the repercussions for what she is accused to have done, however if she did commit the crime she is accused of and murdered her five year old son, I do not believe that there is such a thing as retribution for murdering an innocent five year old, therefore one must now question whether this purpose is fulfilled in cases like this, even if we assume that she is getting a life sentence does it truly fulfill the retribution of such a monstrous act? As for the second purpose, deterrence, making sure to prevent others from engaging in criminal acts as such out of fear of the repercussions. I believe that in Lodzinski’s case it fully does fulfill this purpose. However, the third purpose, incapacitation I believe in this case is flawed, as this purpose is to prevent an offender like Lodzinski to commit further crimes in society, if she had in fact murdered her child, she murdered him in 1991, which would mean that she has been free and living her life for 25 years after committing such a heinous crime. Therefore as far as this purpose is concerned, our criminal justice
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
Reasoning: The responsibility of the prosecutor is to disclose information and evidence. If there is a promise being made by an attorney, then the information should be must be attributed to the government. The Supreme court had found that the prosecutor’s lacked to disclose evidence that was relevant to the defense. The prosecutor had also failed to correct the false evidence that had been presented at the
When 12 million citizens are arrested each year, this invites a great deal of stress into the lives of public defenders who are responsible for 180 to 200 cases at a time. I personally would never put myself in a work environment which lead my hair to fall out and anxiety to take over because my life was being threatened. The realization that people exist like that is daunting. One element that struck me most in the film was when Williams’ co-worker, Brandy Alexander, spoke about representing people who admit to the crime. I had a hard time processing how a father would pride himself in raping his own daughter. I actually rewound the movie because I thought my ears deceived me at the fact he would do it again given the opportunity. Representing a case in that capacity would break me mentally. It was well said that defenders must “go at war with the system even when the client is guilty”.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
“may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one” (as cited in Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150).
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
All the laws, which concern with the administration of justice in cases where an individual has been accused of a crime, always begin with the initial investigation of the crime and end either with imposition of punishment or with the unconditional release of the person. Most of the time it is the duty of the members of constituted authorities to inflict the punishment. Thus it can be said that almost all of the punishments are an act of self-defense and an act of defending the community against different types of offences. According to Professor Hart “the ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime” (Hart P.65). Whenever the punishments are inflicted having rationale and humane factor in mind and not motivated by our punitive passions and pleasures then it can be justified otherwise it is nothing but a brutal act of terrorism. Prison System: It has often been argued that the criminals and convicted prisoners are being set free while the law-abiding citizens are starving. Some people are strongly opposed the present prison and parole system and said that prisoners are not given any chance for parole. Prisons must provide the following results: Keep dangerous criminals off the street Create a deterrent for creating a crime The deterrent for creating a crime can be justified in the following four types Retribution: according to this type, the goal of prison is to give people, who commit a crime, what they deserved Deterrence: in this type of justification, the goal of punishment is to prevent certain type of conduct Reform: reform type describes that crime is a disease and so the goal of punishment is to heal people Incapacitation: the...
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
Eliminating the death penalty as a method of punishment will only allow criminals to wreak havoc and chaotic in our community without the fear of death. When a person commits a crime, they are disrupting the order in the community. Justice help restore the disruption of that order. The Death penalty restore social order and give the states authority to maximized retribution for the victims. When the state does not have the authority to maximum retribution, the public may put the law in their own hands. Although, execution may be cruel and inhumane, it is nothing compared to the fate of many victims in the hand of the murderers. The purpose of the death penalty is to provide retribution for the victims and their families. However, retribution is not revenge. “Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (Pojman, 2004).
...her children’s life. Andrea knew that her act was legally wrong but she claims she felt it was morally correct. While laws and morality are intertwined, the duty of our court system is to enforce laws not to legislate morality. Andrea Yates was aware that her premeditated act would be legally wrong, and did in fact think about the crime prior to coming it. These actions are distinct characteristics associated with the classical theory of crime.
Cases end up in life sentences in jail. The goal is to end all cases, for murdering someone, to life sentences.
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.