The defense of duress is available where a defendant commits a crime to prevent the greater of death or serious injury to himself or another threatened by a third party. On the other hand, the defense of necessity refers to circumstances where a person chooses to commit an offence to avoid a greater evil to them or another which would result from objective dangers arising from the circumstances in which they are placed . The difference between these two similar defenses is that duress is regarded as an excuse in English Law, whereas necessity is regarded as a justificatory defense.
For example, in the case of Missouri decision of State v Green , the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years. While serving this sentence, the defendant committed a crime of escaping from prison in order to protect himself from submission to the threatened assault.
The defense of necessity is on the principle of “necessity, and not emergency”. As a justificatory defense, it stresses on the actor choosing an option between two “evils” and engaging the lesser of them. Basically, significance of the defense of necessity involves a balancing of evils. The criminal offence committed by the defendant must involve a lesser evil. Basically, necessity is a defense when the defendant kills one person in order to save the lives of many others . Brooke LJ in the case of Re A stated that there are three requirements for the application of the defense of necessity. Firstly, the act is needed to avoid the unavoidable and irreparable evil. Second, no more should be done than is reasonably necessary for the objective to be attained. Lastly, the evil inflicted must be proportionate to the evil avoided.
...
... middle of paper ...
...fect on the other patient.
Further, Brooke LJ was also of the opinion that the doctrine of double effect could not apply in this case. The reason being it was impossible to say that the surgeons would be acting in Mary’s best interest when the operation would save Jodie but kill her. Robert Walker LJ was also stated eventhough the operation would be in the best interest of both twins, he acknowledged that to kill Mary merely because it was in her best interest to die would be murder. He was also of the opinion that, in law, it could hardly be regarded as anything other than an evil consequence. However, the evil consequence would not be unlawful because it was not the motive or intention of the operation.
Next, common law too recognises a narrow version of justificatory necessity, operating mainly but not entirely in the area of medical care.
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.
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if
The Supreme Court developed the laws governing Victim Impact Statements based on what they thought was a constitutional conflict where the punishment may be enhanced when a statement made by the victim or family may have more of an impact on the sentencing authority than the severity of the crime (Stevens 2000). Or that the victim impact statement may draw the juries attention away from the evidence at hand and the case being decided through emotional not evidence based means. The Eighth Amendment requires that no excessive bail be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted.
Williams, J. (2010, Nov. 23). Wrongful life and abortion. Retrieved on January 23, 2012, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/q69145g545q13hg5/
The double jeopardy Act is supposed to protect a defendant who in this case has not been found guilty of a crime not to be tried a second time for the same crime by the same sovereign state. The act is therefore supposed to protect the defendant who in this case has lost much in terms of time, money and emotionally during the trial to start rebuilding his or her life without the fear of being prosecuted a second time.
However, Jeff Jacoby from The Boston Globe argues in his article that “there is also protection for the living (When Murderers…, 1). For instance, when the judicial system condemns someone to life in prison there is always the possibility that the criminal may escape. If that criminal escapes he could potentially use his anger to murder the remaining people that had him sent to prison to begin with. Also he could injure or even murder other people that are not even connected with the crime. For the individual that committed the crime there is no sense of self consciousness. However, if the individual responsible for putting the criminal in jail was to find out that he escaped and continued his spree of crimes it could cause that individual to feel guilty about not doing something more to the person who does not care about what they have done or how it has affected anyone
Although people are sent to correctional institutions as punishment, he/she must not suffer pains beyond the deprivation of liberty no matter what the reason is for incarceration. Prisoners must always be treated humanely and in accordance with his/her behavior (Peak, 2007). Although punishment, by definition, involves the infliction of pain, the incapacitation itself is the punishment. Inmates are deprived of their liberty, and therefore incarceration is painful to those who value their liberty. Imprisonment may also lead to psychological punishment, which occasionally leads to mental and moral deterioration. The benefits of imprisonment include deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation or
When a murderer receives a jail sentence there is always a possibility that he/she could escape and continue to kill more people, causing more trouble and distress to our already deteriorating society. There have been many cases regarding prison escapes from convicted murderers. A French criminal, Pascal Payet failed to hijack a protected truck in 1997 and killed the driver by firing at him 14 times. He was then sentenced to a 30-year jail sentence in a French prison, but managed to escape twice with the aid of his accomplices by skyjacking a helicopter. However, Payet was still identified in Spain and recaptured by Spanish police albeit undergoing cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance. (Escape Artist’s First Prison Breakout, n.d.). Payet is one of many prison escapees who take advantage of the corrupt jail syst...
The procedure known as “parole” in the criminal justice system has been in practice in the United States since the late 1800’s when it was begun in a reformatory in Elmira, New York. It’s process provides for early conditional release from prison for convicted felons, after part of their prison sentence has been served, and they are found to be eligible for parole based on factors such as: conduct while incarcerated, rehabilitative efforts/progress, type of offense, and remorse for their crime. Its use has been expanded to many states, and today has become the primary way by which offenders are released from prisons and correctional institutions. Unfortunately, parole is not always rewarded to worthy inmates, thus putting society at risk for repeated crimes that often outweigh the benefits of parole, therefore, parole should be abolished and inmates should be made to complete their full sentences. Prison inmates are usually sentenced by the severity of their crimes, as well as their mental intention at the time of the act. For example: a person who commits murder intentionally expects to take the life of another in reckless disregard for human life, and knows that the act itself which he or she has decided to commit, will surely bring about death. However, in the case of manslaughter, which is also the taking of a human life, there is no actual intention to bring about death. The act that lead to someone’s death, is measured by the circumstances that made the person kill such as self-defense, or a crime of passion because the killer was provoked in such a way that a chain of events lead to violence which eventually resulted in peril. Because of the difference in how these crimes are carried out, inmates are sentenced differently; some are sentenced to life in prison, and others are sentenced to several years and will be eligible for parole after serving part of their sentence. In lieu of inmates completing their full sentences, parole tries to achieve releasing inmates early based on the idea that the inmate has been sufficiently punished, and should be given the opportunity to become a law abiding citizen, capable of functioning in our society with adequate supervision. Although parole attempts to carefully screen inmates prior to granting early release, their decisions often do not merit wise choices. As a social worker, I e...
3. A parent might be required to undergo lifesaving treatment if there is a compelling state interest in protecting the welfare of a child from being deprived of his needed caretaker.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine is one that I feel extremely passionate about; in fact, on a daily basis, I adopt this philosophy on a small scale. For instance, most of my volunteer experiences aim to help and provide support for those who are less privileged, whether monetarily, physically, or emotionally. Participating in countless food and toy drives, providing warm clothing for the homeless, collecting donations for the Cancer Society, and interacting regularly with the community, I have learned the preciousness of one’s life. Therefore, I strongly believe it is a right for each individual, regardless of race, culture, religion, gender, age, social status, and sexual orientation, to be protected from discrimination and harm. The human population should not be separated - we are