defenses and justification defenses. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Focusing on excuse defense, some examples are known as; age, mental disorder, automatism, mistake of fact, and mistake of law. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Mental disorder is defined as “disease of the mind.” (Lawteacher.net, 2014) This excuse supports that the defendant was not thinking normally at the time of the criminal act and therefor did not understand the act of the crime they committed. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Some examples of mental disorder are known as paranoia, schizophrenia, and depression. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Automatism is used as an excuse that the environment around the defendant caused them to commit the criminal act involuntarily. This excuse focuses on actus reus, and is hands down one of the hardest circumstances to prove in a trial. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Mistake of Fact is used in trial to downplay or eliminate mens rea in a criminal act that has been committed. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) The source of this excuse is that the defendant is unaware of the law that they have broken that will charge them formally. A very popular use of mistake of fact is used in deadly force because it is based off of pure judgment which may vary from one person to another.
The definition of justification is “the involvement the defendant admitting that when they committed a criminal act; their actions were justified by duress, necessity, self-defense, provocation, and entrapment.” (Lawteacher.net, 2014) This legal defense allows the defendant to give understanding as to why they committed the crime, and the best opportunity to justify their side of the story to make it seem ok in the eyes of others. Duress is defined as “threats, violence, constraints, or other ...
... middle of paper ...
...she should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law. (Definitions.uslegal.com, 2014) A court case that deals with this topic is U.S. v. Armstrong. In this case the Supreme Court stated that to prove a selective prosecution case two elements must be proven. (Dfreemanpa.tripod.com, 2014) The first element is that it must be demonstrated that federal prosecutorial policy has a discriminatory affect. (Dfreemanpa.tripod.com, 2014) The second element is that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. (Dfreemanpa.tripod.com, 2014)
Procedural defenses do not focus on guilt or innocence, but on the procedures used to investigate the case. (Crim-law.info, 2014) Many important measures of this style of defense are making sure the search and seizure was acceptable, if there was probable cause, whether civil rights were violated or not. (Crim-law.info, 2014)
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
According to my research, to prove this type of case, one must have some type of mental, cognitive, or emotional defect during the act of the criminal offense.
Every once in awhile, a case comes about in which the defendant confesses to a crime, but the defense tries to argue that at the time the defendant was not sane. This case is no different; the court knows the defendant is guilty the only aspect they are unsure about is the punishment this murderer should receive. The State is pushing for a jail sentence and strongly believes that the defendant was sane at the time of the murder. It is nearly impossible for the defense to prove their evidence burden of 51%. The State claims that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the murder. By using excessive exaggeration, premeditation and motive, the Prosecution will prove that the defendant knew exactly what he was doing and how wrong it was.
In 1990, Brenda Koss shot her husband, Michael, while he slept and killed him consequently. Brenda Koss and a number of other witnesses testified about Michael’s ongoing abusive behaviors toward her. The Ohio Supreme Court recognized BWS as a defense in a criminal case. The Koss case is an example of how the law and perception on BWS evolved. In 1981, the state high court had refused to allow the admission of any evidence on BWS, believing that it had not yet been scientifically validated to sufficient extent. However in State v. Koss case, the court found that the professional literature and psychiatric understanding of BWS had very much improved; therefore, the court reversed itself and held that expert testimony on BWS could be admitted in a trial. The Court held that evidence of BWS was admissible through an expert testimony to help prove an element of self-defense —that is, Brenda Koss had a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was the use of force (Bettman, 2011). This case illustrates how the court changed its opinion and perception on BWS as the public started to understand more about BWS and battered women. Unlike State v. Stewart (1988), BWS was positively used to support battered women’s acts of self-defense. Shortly after the Koss case was decided, the legislature passed a law recognizing and validating BWS; it permits the use of expert testimony in support of the defense.
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
The state should always observe them in ensuring that an individual faces a fair and impartial trial which they have been accused of. The procedural due process is concerned with verifying that the law was applicable and convincing. Also involves the arrest and examination of the charges brought forward.
Most court cases end in one of the following two ways: Guilty or Not Guilty. In addition to these simple verdicts, information is sometimes provided as to why the jury came to its conclusion. Such is the case for Not guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI). While the first two scenarios are simple and fair, the last choice has raised more than a few eyebrows over time. Many believe that the Insanity Plea is a simple way to get a high-stakes criminal off the hook, though many would also disagree and say that the Insanity Plea is a justifiable resolution to court cases. To define the actual term, “Insanity Plea”, the authors Zachary Torry and Stephen Billick state that, “The Insanity Defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the defense used by some mentally disordered defendants who do not have the capacity for understanding right and wrong at the time of their criminal act.” (Torry and Billick)In another article, Neuroscience, Ethics and Legal Responsibility: The Problem of the Insanity Defense, the author Stephen Smith, gives another excellent definition, he says,
Crime can be described combination between both behavior and mental factors. This will prove incredibly crucial in the definition of crime in relation to mental illness. Many of those that commit crimes are not convicted due to their illness so it is important to note, for the purpose of this analysis, that all illegal activity is considered crime, regardless of conviction (Monahan and Steadman 1983).
Biological crime theory describes that an individual is born with the desire to commit a certain crime. Evolutionary factors influence an individual’s involvement in criminal behavior. “Biological theories focus on aspects of the physical body, such as inherited genes, evolutionary factors, brain structures, or the role of hormones in influencing behavior” (Marsh, I, 2006, 3). Murderers that are innate to kill are born with factors such as mental illnesses that are the driving force as to why one may kill. Because of the biological crime theory, some individuals, though rare, are able to plead insanity. This is because the actions of the individual are said to be beyond their control (Ministry of Justice, 2006, 3).
This notion is however, as some would put it, a ‘romantic view’ of the criminal law (Yang, 2013. P. 31). Protection of the innocent from a fate that should be reserved for the guilty is at the center of the indictment. Our procedures fail to achieve the most basic task of a just system. Organizations like the Innocence Project claim that well over 20,000 Americans could be in jail for crimes they did not commit (Wilkinson, 2014. P. 1101). There is a problem with absolute immunity for prosecutors; the incentives it creates. We have a system that not only fails to sanction bad behavior, but also often rewards
Deciphering differences between absolute and qualified immunities is sometimes difficult. Typically, absolute immunity shelters one from a lawsuit of liability despite his state of mind at the time the violation of constitutional rights occur. Under present laws, prosecutors are protected under absolute immunity for their multitude of functions. The U.S. Supreme Court has advised that this is a limited safeguard of authority. Once a defendant is arrested, a prosecutor is immune from a suit for details “intimately associated” with a legal portion of a criminal process, for which there is probable cause, for the arrest. All other actions not associated with the legal portion of a case, qualified immunity is applied to the prosecutor. The protection
When there is a criminal charge or civil lawsuit and you want to express an affirmative defense you use facts other than those that are being alleged against you by the prosecutor or plaintiff. The facts, if they can be proven by the defendant, will mitigate or defeat the legal consequences of the alleged illegal action. Affirmative defenses in civil lawsuits include the statute of frauds, the statute of limitations, waiver, and others that are listed in rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A few examples of affirmative defense in criminal prosecutions are insanity, self-defense, and the statute of limitations.
3. explanation or account by the offender to alleviate his/her guilt by giving an implicit or explicit explanation or account of the
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability for a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of such defenses. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime.
A cognitive disorder is a psychological disorder that affects the cognitive abilities such as memory, problem solving, and perception. (Cherry) Some anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and psychotic disorders are classified as cognitive disorders. (Cherry) Other types of cognitive disorders are Alzheimer’s disease, delirium, dementia, and last amnesia that. People develop these disorders over time as they grow.