History of Euthanasia in America 1973- The American Medical Association issues the Patient Bill of Rights. The groundbreaking document allows patients to refuse medical treatment. 1976- The New Jersey Supreme Court rules that the parents of Karen Ann Quinlan, who has been in a tranquilizer-and-alcohol-induced coma for a year, can remove her respirator. She dies nine years later. 1979- Jo Roman, a New York artist dying of cancer, makes a videotape, telling her friends and family she intends to end her life.
In contrast, the federal principles authorize a government attorney to contemplate noncriminal dispositions even in response to a serious activity. In light of this difference, an English policeman would doubtlessly disagree that the deterrent effect of prosecution, or the suspect’s culpability in connection with the offense are subjects he should consider in deciding whether to prosecute. He would pass that responsibility to the judge for consideration on disposition. In deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings, a prosecutor must balance two competing responsibilities. He must vigorously prosecute individuals reasonably suspected of significant criminal activity, but must avoid harassing or disturbing innocent citizens.
The defence would also generally not be allowed access to the police statements of witnesses giving incriminating evidence against their clients. The Public Prosecutor serves the community and is a representative of the state; he should prosecute criminals with the mind-set that justice should be done instead of winning the case. In his eagerness to bring the criminal to justice, the Public Prosecutor may withhold evidence or statements that would otherwise be beneficial to the accused and this could lead to a wrongful conviction. Former AG Walter Woon has stated that public interest is the reigning consideration when it comes to criminal prosecution, and that cases are only brought to court where the Public Prosecutor is convinced beyond reasonable doubt of an offense. However this may result in the Public Prosecutor being biased and determined to nail the accused whether the accused is really guilty or not.
In many cases, a crime will either be unrecorded or unreported. Such crimes remain anonymous and so would not be counted in statistical data relating to crime. ‘The dark figure of crime’ is the term used to describe this. Criminologists have attempted to analyse and attempt to assess the size of the so-called dark figure of crime. The only way thus far has been to estimate or guess the figure, but the estimated figures differ between criminologists, although they all agr... ... middle of paper ... ...ficial figure, this could be due to people including things which they believe is a crime when its not.
Without the person’s knowledge of their specific rights, law enforcement is going against the lawful procedures the court system has set out. While it is the job of the police to remind a person of their rights, there are times when this is not the case. As said by Alex McBride in his study of the Miranda v. Arizona case, "No statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice” (McBride 1). This statement demonstrates how important Miranda Rights are. McBride states that any statement a defendant says it is not the outcome of them choosing to speak, but rather the pressuring of a defendant to speak without the knowledge of their rights.
It also discusses the effect an anonymous jury may have on the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Also considered are attempts by trial judges, through particular jury instructions, to minimize or eliminate prejudice to defendants resulting from the use of an anonymous jury. And finally the paper examines the need for anonymous juries and concludes that in certain cases jurors may either fear retaliation or actually be exposed to intimidation unless the court employs measures to conceal their identities. Introduction Juror anonymity is an innovation that was unknown to the common law and to American jurisprudence in its first two centuries. Anonymity was first employed in federal prosecutions of organized crime in New York in the 1980's.
Accordingly crimes against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor not the victims files the case in court as a representative of the state. If it were civil case then the wronged party would file it (Reuters, 2014). Violation of a statue that prohibits some type of activity is known as the wrongful act. The... ... middle of paper ... ... Under federal law and in most states, any crime that is not a felony is considered a misdemeanor.
According to Rhode, the assertion that non-lawyer practice of law causes grave harm to consumers receiving the lay assistance is not based on empirical evidence. Contrary to Rhode’s claims, Ables asserts that persons accused of unsanctioned practice of law usually argue that they are barred from the practice because they are “taking money from lawyers”. However, he clarifies that no member of the committee has ever argued in that line about any complaint. Furthermore, he contends that there are many problems caused by people unintentionally engagin... ... middle of paper ... ... by a judge not to practice law without a license. Such measures have to be taken in order to protect innocent recipients of the services of unauthorized persons practicing the law.
In this case, he could say Officer Jones used excessive force causing physical injury to the man (this man was unarmed) and did not actually commit the crime he was accused of (Saltzman, 1999). Civil rights laws are there to protect citizens from abuses by the government including those from police. The officer can argue that he was only acting based on the information that he received from the victim and that he believed the information to be truthful and that the suspect at first was not showing cooperation when he was asked to stop. His civil rights was violated because of the way he behaved leading the officer to think he actually has a gun on him (Ross,
The judge stated that since the officers’ names are not shield as personnel documentation, “The Times” had the right to know the names. The Long Beach Police union President was worried about the release of officers’ names. Law enforcement officer from all over California argue that releasing the information of misbehave officers’ to the public, would put the officers’ life and family at risk. Due to their arguments, lawmakers took legislative action and destroyed a bill that made available the admission to disciplinary records. Judge Patrick T. Madden of Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that the police should not keep secret the information of the officers and if they will do so, they will have to justify the reason why.