There are many forms of defense used in criminal court, one of them being duress. Duress, which is also know as compulsion is when a person commits a crime because someone using force either coerces them to do so or threatens to use force. In general duress is used, as a defense when the crime committed is less serious than the crime avoided. An example of duress would be a mother who would be forced to rob a bank because someone is holding her children hostage. The defense of duress is different in all states, some states state that one can not use the defense of duress when it come to crimes such as homicide. There are many forms of defenses however voluntary intoxication in not an effective defense. Voluntary intoxication is when a person …show more content…
Making an honest mistake can result in a person not facing criminal liability. A 16 year old student from Japan who didn’t speak English was going to a party he went to the wrong house and the homeowner shot the student. The homeowner was acquitted because he thought the student was an intruder. The mistake is needed to eliminate the intent to commit a crime. It is important to know the difference between a mistake and ignorance of fact. Ignorance of fact is when an individual lacks the knowledge about the situation at hand where as mistake of facts means the facts were misunderstood. There is also mistake of the law, when an individual misunderstands what the law is trying to say. However courts have decided both mistake of the law and ignorance of the law cannot be used as a successful …show more content…
This defense may be used when a law-enforced agent encourages law-abiding citizens to take part into illegal activities. Two of the most common entrapment activities are (1) false representation by enforcement agents that are calculated to induce the belief that the illegal behavior is not prohibited and (2) the use of inducements to crime that are so strong that a person of average will and good intent could not resist. When using the defense of entrapment one needs to prove that they are good people who wouldn’t have taken part in illegal activities if it weren’t for government
However, it does not fully disclose the conditions to satisfy this offence. In Wayne v R, the trial judge misled the jury by employing the word ‘might’ instead of ‘probably’, resulting in an appeal allowed22. The lack of a unified distinction between probability and possibility when defining recklessness allows errors like this to misguide the jury’s decision.
“ Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2014) This law encompasses several different aspects of our government and the ways used to regulate them. Maintaining the peace and order of the public is one aspect. Law enforcement officers also try to keep good conduct of the public. Anyone who places the safety of the public in jeopardy, is in violation of this law. Punishment is used in a variety of ways to discipline any person who breaks these laws. There are four main sources used in today’s criminal law:
In law, we desire to see whether or not the person truly intended to do the crime. We desire to know the amount of agency she had within herself to commit or not commit crime. If she did not have this agency, she most likely was entrapped and does not deserve punishment. The people who are not entrapped are those who would have committed the crime regardless of the involvement by the police. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to entrapment for a legal defense because they themselves initiated the causal change of guilt. The cause was not initiated by the police; instead, the police were simply able to deduce from certain circumstances that a crime was taking place and an arrest was inevitable.
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 use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
Mr. Logan, I strongly agree with your findings. The Brady Doctrine plays an important role in the criminal justice system as a whole. It allows innocent people not to be convicted due to the negligence of prosecutors or law enforcement agencies. The Brady Doctrine requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence that is in the possession of the government to the defendant. This verifies the credibility of law enforcement agencies' testimony when used as a witness.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
In this paper I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of plea bargaining. I will define plea bargaining, distinguish between charge bargaining and sentence bargaining, and I will describe how plea bargaining reflects the crime control and due process models in criminal justice.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
Crime, by definition, is an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Every crime, and every criminal has a story. The story of how the Miranda Rights came to be is one of the most well known crimes in history. The Miranda Rights have changed the world of crime and justice to the point of no return, and has affected the lives of everyone involved in crime, has been arrested, has had their rights read, or who has read said rights. It also affects the lives of the police, and the families of the arrested.
Fallacy of ignorance is saying if we can’t prove it, then it cannot exist. Or if we can’t disprove it, then it must exist. An example of a fallacy of ignorance is “You can’t prove that there isn’t a mirror universe of our own, so there must be one out there
Miranda also protects suspects from overzealous police officers. Although most law-enforcement agents in the United States are decent men and women, some abuse their power. They may try to coerce suspects into giving false confessions. Time and time again, we read of cases where suspects were forced to make confessions because an overzealous or prejudiced police officers want to close a case. The story of Rubin Hurricane Carter, made popular by the motion picture of the same name, demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check. If the law is used correctly, the guilty would receive their due punishment. When police officers inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, it is very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning.
In conclusion, the entrapment defense the Supreme Court recognizes that criminal behavior is no always due to a guilty mind, but may be the result of the individual reacting to the environment around them. Entrapment is often misunderstood and despite the previous Supreme Court there are some areas of the entrapment defense that are still cloudy and are not cut and dry. Therefore the application of the entrapment defense is important and necessary in ensuring and upholding fundamental fairness, protecting individuals from wrongful police conduct.
Not only does ignorance have a negative impact on people, it is also “the root and stem of all evil” (Plato), which can destroy a person. To start off, self-superiority can cloud a person’s judgment; making it evident that intelligence can easily be lost to arrogance. To add on, anger and the human tendency to make rash decisions can also contribute to ignorance, resulting in eventual downfall. Lastly, unconscious attempts to blind yourself from the truth can result in the committing of major sins. Tragedy occurs in “Oedipus the King” when ignorance causes disastrous events, proving that lack of knowledge can result in their misfortune.
In addition, the matter in which the victim was confined comes into play when determining if it is a case of false imprisonment or kidnapping. This also varies by jurisdiction, although most do concur that any force or threat of force used during the incident is enough to obtain a conviction. Certain jurisdictions, however, state that confinement that occurs as a result of deception is adequate for a conviction. A Guilty