More handpicked essays just for you.
2 aspects of criminal justice system
Basic Principles of Criminal Law
Three major components of the criminal justice system essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Criminal cases, the general principle is that when it comes to proving the guilt of an accused person, the burden of proving this rests with the prosecution . In the case of Woolmington v DPP , it was stated in the judgment of Lord Sankey that; “Throughout the web of the English Criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to….. the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception”. From the Judgment of Lord Sankey, the following circumstances where the accused bears the legal burden of proof in criminal cases were established; where the accused pleads the defence of insanity, where a statute or Act of Parliament expressly imposes the legal burden of proof on the defence, and where a statute or Act of Parliament impliedly imposes the legal burden of proof on the defence. An accused person will also bear the legal burden of proof of the statutory defence of diminished responsibility which is covered by section 2(2) Homicide Act 1957. In the cases of Lambert Ali and Jordan , the Court of Appeal held that imposing the legal burden of proof of proving diminished responsibility on the defence does not infringe Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In relation to the express statutory exceptions to the general rule which is also known as ‘Reverse Onus Provisions’, i.e. one of the circumstances where an accused person bears the legal burden of proof in a criminal case, there is a possibility of these provisions falling foul of or being incompatible with Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that; ‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty a...
... middle of paper ...
....C. 352.
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 451;Sweet & Maxwell.
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 451;Sweet & Maxwell.
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 452;Sweet & Maxwell.
(1975) Q.B. 27.
(1975) Q.B. 27.
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 452;Sweet & Maxwell.
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 452;Sweet & Maxwell.
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 452;Sweet & Maxwell.
(1987) AC 352, HL.
(1935) AC 462, HL.
Adrian Zuckerman, The Third Exception to the Woolmington Rule (1976) 92 L.Q.R. 402.
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 453;Sweet & Maxwell.
(1987) AC 352, HL.
Patrick Healy, Proof and Policy: No Golden Threads (1987) Crim; L.R. 355;
The Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition, Ian Dennis, page 455; Sweet & Maxwell.
The Supreme Court of the United States interpretation of the Sixth and a Fourteenth amendment is that defendants, who do not fit the legal description of competence to stand trial, should not be tried while they are in such a condition. Competency to stand trial refers to a person being able to participate as well as assist in his or her own defense. It has to be determined inline with the legal definition given by the laws before an individual can stand trial. The Supreme Court set a specific standard when determining competency to stand trial. The specific standard known as The Dusky Standards, which states that, a person must have sufficient ability to communicate with his or her attorney with a reasonable and rational understanding of the proceedings against him or her. These standards came to be after a mentally ill man named Milton Dusky kidnapped a fifteen year old girl named Alison McQuery, and took her over state lines with two boys she knew which ultimately led to her rape by the two boys (Dusky,1960). There are considerations that are made with respect to the statutes governing a Jurisdiction, and the criteria under law for the particular case. The adjudicative competence of the defendant has to be exhausted in the quest seeking to determine whether he or she is competent to stand trial. This refers not only to the defendant’s ability to take part in the procedures of the courtroom, but also for the other related procedures during the prosecution. All data must be taken into account when determining if someone is competent to stand trial. This data is not from the defendant in question, but rather from other parties who will help give the court an insight into him or her. They include reports from psychiatrists and othe...
When a person is accused of a crime, it is the responsibility of a judge to deem them competent to stand trial, mentally unstable to at the time of their trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity. This was something that was highly disputed during and after the case of John Salvi. John Salvi was an anti-abortionist of strong Catholic faith who shot and killed two people in attacks at Planned Parenthood clinics.
Insanity. Criminal responsibility or not guilty by reason of insanity can be evaluated through the MMPI-2. The validity scales that show if an individual is responsible by responding; knows the difference between right and wrong; or determines if the individual cannot respond to an incident the individual is accused (Walters, 2011). Bobby was aware of what he was doing, knows right and wrong; but Bobby still suffered from a mental illness. The ...
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.
One of the main differences between criminal cases and civil cases is that they are held in different courts, this is because there is a significant distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. Crimes are considered to be a type of wrongdoing, however civil wrongs tend to have only an impact on the parties involved in the case. For example: a breach of contract. Where criminal wrongs tend to have. impact on society itself.
For those that don’t know, the insanity plea, as defined by Cornell Law, is based on the fact that a person accused of a crime can acknowledge that he/she committed the crime, but argue that he/she is not responsible for it because of his or her mental illness, by pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This first became a problem in 1843. Daniel M’Naughten was trialed for shooting the secretary of the Prime Minister in attempt to assassinate the Prime Minister himself. It was said that M’Naughten thought the Prime Minister was the person behind all his personal and financial problems. The jury ruled him “not guilty by reason of insanity”. The reason for the verdict was M’Naughten...
One of the objections to this institution was that the adversarial principle is violated, this being a fundamental principle of criminal proceedings. But bear in mind that this principle should not be exercised the same in all cases, as simple cases where the facts have been recognized cannot be treated the same way as the most complex cases, where the defendants have not admi...
The English legal system is complex and there are many ways in which it can be influenced, this essay will explore some of the different, more obvious ways the law can be changed and what this shows in relation to the quote above. First the essay will discuss the different ways the law can be created and changed and who enables and controls those changes, with my primary examples being the common law and legislation for the judicracy and Parliament respectively, then the essay will cover to what extent these powers enable the judicracy to change and create law in relation to Parliament and if it could be discribed as "opportunistic and piecemeal".
In today’s society there are rules that define evidence pertaining to a defendant’s trial. These rules are defined as the “The Rules of Evidence” or “The Law of Evidence.” These rules create a safe and orderly environment, promote efficiency, and enhance the quality of evidence that pertain to all criminal trials. These rules restrict what a jury can and cannot hear or see, details of the law, and the importance of the effective performance of the law enforcement officer. Americans are well aware of the rules that govern evidence; but what are they, what do they mean, how do they apply to each case, and how are they broken down.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
Therefore, there has been a breach of Article 6 (2) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” How does this presumption of guilt compare to U.S. law, which states, “Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law”?
Ashworth and Redmayne (2005) argue how there should be strict safeguard not to proceed to court unless there is sufficient evidence. In this way, the court will not make the mistake of convicting an innocent person as well as reducing the stress for the prosecutors and they will save time in this process. The police use-to-use ‘prima facie test’ and this was use to assess if the available evidence would be acceptable to result a conviction by a reasonable jury or magistrates’ court. The CPS uses a code to see if the existing evidence can provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ and if it’s reliable enough to be used in court. The code states that a “case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it
The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on a foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions
It is apparent that insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility share similarities and differences in their range of application and in definition. Insanity and automatism are most similar in that they both are full defences (with different outcomes) which exist when a defendant does not have the necessary actus reus or mens rea, whereas diminished responsibility is a partial defence which only applies to murder. The source of the defendant’s mental abnormality is the greatest point of distinction between all of the defences. Whether the abnormality is internal, external or a diagnosed medical condition will play a significant role in which defence can be used. As defences they are all used for a similar reason, and that is to eliminate or reduce liability for criminal offences.
There are two theories that justify punishment: retributivism according to which punishment ensures that justice is done, and utilitarianism which justifies punishment because it prevents further harm being done. The essence of defences is that those who do not freely choose to commit an offence should not be punished, especially in those cases where the defendant's actions are involuntary. All three of these defences concern mental abnormalities. Diminished responsibility is a partial statutory defence and a partial excuse. Insanity and automatism are excuses and defences of failure of proof. While automatism and diminished responsibility can only be raised by the defendant, insanity can be raised by the defence or the prosecution. It can be raised by the prosecution when the defendant pleads diminished responsibility or automatism. The defendant may also appeal against the insanity verdict. With insanity and diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant. With automatism the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must negate an automatism claim beyond reasonable doubt.