FDDSF

In addition, due process model suggests that when individuals are charged with criminal activities, the crime justice system ought to protect them. On the other hand, the criminal control model banks on the assumption that the police facts are absolutely reliable and judges the arrested individuals as if they have already been found guilty. In addition, the model requires such individuals to be punished by the government. In contrast, the due process model views the arrested individuals

In the event that the defense is convinced that such violation of the 4 amendment rights have been done, a motion may be filed by the defense lawyer, to suppress the evidence. Then the prosecutor will be required to prove that there was no such violation, by a preponderance of the evidence. Failure to prove the case by the prosecution will result in the case-in-chief throwing the evidence out of the case. Nonetheless, during rebuttal when witness credibility is being a... ... middle of paper ... ...e benefits to the society should be given an upper hand as compared to enforcing the rule. To ensure ultimate gain from the exclusionary rule, the balance maintained in implementing it should be inclined towards the need for a sane and sensible society.

This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police officials to obtain evidence without violating the rights of the accused. Should it be found that the evidence obtained was done so illegally, then the evidence is inadmissible in a court of law. The point at which most desire to attack the exclusionary rule is that it enables those who are found with incriminating items to walk free. The most ardent critics of the exclusionary rule underestimate the good done by the rule, while appealing to commonly held paranoia of losing a war on crime in order to exaggerate its weaknesses.

First, it is necessary to understand what “civil wrong and criminal wrong” is, so we can have a better climate to discuss what is at stake. A Civil wrong is “An action with a tort, an act against another person or their property, and, a breach of the terms of a contract”. (The law dictionary). On the other hand, a criminal wrong is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction. That being said, society would address liability for civil wrong separately from criminal wrong because, in a civil wrong, the plaintiff stands to benefit from the compensatory damages as well from the punitive damages.

It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments. It is often argued that by promoting high standards of care, strict liability protects the liberty of the public from dangerous practices.

The House of Lords, quashing her conviction, held that it had to be proved that the defenda... ... middle of paper ... ...he offence that took place. I believe that that this is a delicate area for judges and that each case should be reviewed in isolation and judges should have the right for discretion. Each case will have different facts and diverse levels of responsibility and so one rule cannot be made for all strict liability cases. Strict liability should not be overruled entirely, however should be reviewed by the law commission in order to prevent those with no control over an offence and without the means to prevent it being accountable for the crime. In a just society people should not be sentenced just to make a point for the general public or for the single reason that a judge feels someone should be held responsible and the defendant is the only reasonable person to charge, as this is not reasonable ground to charge someone.

Deterrence theories rely on criminal prosecutions to prevent corporate crime after the crime has already been committed (ex-post), where as compliance theories focus regulatory agencies that encourage compliance with the law before the crime takes place (ex-ante). 3.1 Deterrence Theory Deterrence theory argues that individuals act in accordance with their self-interest and obey the law because they fear the penalties of criminal behavior. More often than not, they choose not to commit crimes because they have seen harsh punishments imposed on others. Current research on deterrence emphasizes the role of the criminal justice system enforcing and punishing offenders. The fear of detection, conviction, and punishment resulting from prosecution forms the core of deterrence theory.

It differs from other offences because mere agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement. Though there is close association of conspiracy with instigation, the abetment by conspiracy as contemplated under the IPC does not have similar characteristics. Therefore, the characteristics of a case of criminal conspiracy were elucidated by the honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Khalid v. the State of West Bengal , held through a full bench that in order to prove a case of criminal conspiracy, the following characteristics should be clearly identifiable if: (a) an object to be accomplished is set out; (b) a plan or scheme embodying the means to accomplish that object is available; (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means; (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt

In cases involving negligence, the neighbour principal, established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) is used to determine whether or not the defendant was at fault. This involves looking at whether there a duty of care that was breached, causing the damage to occur, as it was deemed unfair to expect the individual to be liable for people to whom a duty of care cannot be found. The defendant will not be found to be at fault if they have taken reasonable steps to avoid damage occ... ... middle of paper ... ... without the “help” of the police. As with Strict Liability crimes, the ordinary person would not see the defendant as being at fault here, and may view the use of fault in this area of the law as being unfair. The issue of fault is even present in defences, in that aggravating and mitigating factors can be used to lessen the amount of fault which the defendant is thought of having.

In torts, strict liability is the doctrine that imposes liability on a party or person without a finding of fault. A finding of fault would be negligence or tortious intent. The plaintiff needs to prove only that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Strict liability is imposed for legal infractions that are malum prohibitum rather than malum in se. Malum prohibitum means that an act is wrong because it violates a statute.