More handpicked essays just for you.
Mental illness and the criminal system paper
Mental illness and the criminal system paper
Quizlet criminal procedure
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this case the accused, Mr Cheatham stabbed his wife, three old year
old daughter and three month old daughter numerous times. His wife and
older daughter died from their wounds but skilled surgery managed to
save the life of his three-month-old daughter.
The prosecution would want to try the accused for two counts of murder
(of his wife and older child) and one count of attempted murder (the
younger child). However, the accused may be able to argue the defence
of insanity, or in the alternative, diminished responsibility, which
would result in either acquittal or a murder conviction being reduced
to manslaughter.
Firstly what the prosecution must prove to gain a conviction on the
charges will be discussed. Secondly what the defence must prove in
order to escape conviction will be discussed. Last of all the two
different cases will be assessed and which case appears to be the
stronger side will be suggested.
The relevant jurisdiction has been assumed to be the Australian
Capital Territory, and all referred legislation references in this
paper are Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) unless otherwise specified.
1.
==
MURDER
======
In order for the accused to be convicted of murder of his wife and
3-year-old child, the prosecution will need to prove:
(a)That the accused did an act which caused the death of the two
victims; and
(b)The accused did so with:
i. an intention to cause their deaths, or
ii. with a reckless indifference to the probability of death.
(Section 12)
In regards to the first element, the prosecution must show the accused
caused the victim’s death. This is relatively straightforward in the
circumstances because it can be said that the victims’ deaths are the
‘natural consequence’[1] of him stabbing them.
The prosecution must also prove the accused intended their deaths,
that is, that the accused intended death to ensue from his conduct. (Per
Brenann J in He Kaw The v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 at 569, 570)
on October 17, 1981. That week a jury had been struggling to reach a verdict in the case of
Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070. (1925)
In one of Law & Order’s “ripped from the headlines” episodes titled “House Counsel,” a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the mobster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction and then killed him to keep him quiet. The lawyer defending the mobster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in the jury tampering. When he suspects his friend is involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to get the mobster and prosecutes the attorney for the murder to leverage information about the mobster. In the end, the lawyer is convicted and the attorney-client privilege between the lawyer and the mobster is dissolved.
Ed. Larry Madaras and James M. Sorelle.
My homicide case began when the Shreveport Police Department (SPD) received a call from a male caller via 911 reporting he found a body of a black male found in a park near a cul-de-sac in a residential area. I was dispatched and responded to the scene. Upon arrival, I began steps documenting the crime scene. I initiated a rough sketch of the scene and initiated my field notes. A cordon was initiated as I began identifying possible evidence and identifying witnesses and suspects. I canvassed the area and found four 9mm shell casings near the body.
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 17 April 2011), Tabulating decade against defendant gender, between 1770 and 1799. Counting by defendant.
The responding persons are: FRENCH (Chief Justice) KIEFEL (Justice) BELL (Justice) GAGELER (Justice)
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
1. There are two courts that hear criminal trials, which are the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court.
Tyler, Tracey. "Bertha Wilson, 83: First female Supreme Court justice | Toronto Star." thestar.com. N.p., 1 May 2007. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. .
There are multiple crime television shows that are based on a true story or fiction. A well known television show is Law and Order Special Victims Unit, which deals with rape and assault cases. This particular episode deals with a domestic violence case between a retired football star, AJ Martin, and his girlfriend, Paula Bryant. I will be using the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is an interview with the members in a household about reported and unreported crime that occurred within the last six months. “NVCS provides information of characteristics of victims, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status and household income” (Truman and Morgan). Official statistics like the NCVS would be used for comparing its demographics
...ember 1880 (aust first). Despite the constant negative publicity 30,000 people signed a petition to support Ned Kelly in hopes to dismiss his sentence(Masson, 2010).
The offence Harry would be charged with is William’s murder. The area of Law that this case is concerned with is criminal law (homicide). The two offences that constitute homicide are murder and manslaughter. The classic definition of murder was set by Sir Edward Coke (Institutes of the Laws of England, 1797). Murder is defined by the Law as causing the death of a human being within the Queen’s peace with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. It comprises of 2 elements. These are the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (intention).
In all Australian legal jurisdictions, children under the age of ten are considered to be too young to have criminal intent. That means, that children under this age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Australia is the only region in the world to have uniform legal guidelines on the lower age limit of criminal responsibility. (Weijers, Grisso 2009 p.45). Having the presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to know the law completely, therefore not being able to have mens rea, is in my opinion, necessary in our criminal courts. This essay will look at the reasons for the necessary use of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, such as the Beijing rules, the convention
8:50 am, and was shouted at by Mrs Robinson. It was 23rd June 2000. I