This essay will analyze the importance of the rule against double jeopardy and will weigh it against the rights of the accused persons in the eyes of the law
One might reasonably claim that if a doctrine, enshrined in the rule of law, had been in force for the past 800 years[1] then it represents the fact that its importance in law is too high of a value to compromise upon. However, that is not to say that the law, while recognizing such pertinence of the doctrine, cannot make exceptions to such a fundamental principle if it is in the interests of justice. Just as the law is a creature of evolution, so is the nature of the perception of justice[2]. A scrutiny of the balancing of the above two propositions, poses two prominent conundrums; firstly, the principle of finality and its independent value, secondly, the prejudicial effect of allowing subsequently “new and compelling”[3] evidence upon the rights of the legally acquitted. The more insightful question is that, although, the need for justice seen to be done is of greater influence in achieving the interest of justice than the strict interpretation of rule against double jeopardy, does it necessarily follow that the same greatly improves justice? This essay will analyze the importance of the rule against double jeopardy and will weigh it against the rights of the accused persons in the eyes of the law by analyzing two overarching concepts: the principle of finality and the prejudicial effect. It will demonstrate how the Criminal Justice Act seeks to strike a balance
Comment on the adequacy of the law on voluntary Manslaughter and outline reforms that have been or should be suggested.
Comment on the adequacy of the law on voluntary Manslaughter and outline reforms that have been or should be suggested. Homicides are not always classified as murder; most unlawful homicides are classified as manslaughter. These can be classified into two categories, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. The difference between these types of manslaughter is the mens rea for murder as it exists for voluntary manslaughter but does not exist for involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the accused has necessary actus reus and mens rea for murder, but there are mitigating circumstances which allow a partial defence and reduce liability to that of manslaughter. You cannot be charged with voluntary manslaughter, you will be trailed with murder and during the trail you will put forward a partial defence of voluntary manslaughter. Within voluntary manslaughter there are three partial defences, provocation, diminished responsibility and suicide pacts. There have been a few criticisms of voluntary manslaughter put forward the first one is the discrimination against woman in the defence of provocation because the defence of provocation was designed for men as the lashing out in a moment is temper is a male way of reacting and does not take into account hat women who have been battered over a period of time to react the same as the lose their
'In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission to act' - Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it.
'In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission to act'. Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it. In English Law a person will not normally be found criminally liable merely because he failed to act. Lord Justice Stephen stated, "It is not a crime to cause death or bodily injury, even intentionally, by any omission." He then described the situation where a man sees another man drowning but does nothing to help him, even though by simply reaching out his hand would have saved the drowning man. Under English Law the person failing to act has committed no crime. However there are limited exceptions to this rule, where it has been decided that a person should be criminally liable for an omission to act. The first of these is where a statute provides for this. A small number of statutes lay down circumstances where liability will be imposed for an omission to act in specified circumstances. An example of this would be under s.7 Road Traffic Act 1988. Failure to provide a specimen, of breath, blood or urine when required to do so would make the person criminally liable. The remaining situations where an omission to act will result in criminal liability are not defined by statute but are found in the common law. Where there has been a contractual duty to do something and failure
Capital punishment is a complex issue.
Mariah Title Capital punishment is a complex issue. It isn't simply a question of how to punish criminals. When the death penalty is debated, people will bring up racism, sociology, economics, and politics: racism because more minorities are executed; sociology because our neighborhoods and our class structure play a part in both producing and punishing criminals; economics because poverty plays a part both in the reasons for crime and in the ability of people to defend themselves in the legal system; and politics because the "war against crime"- including the death penalty is debated in political campaigns and may even be a reason that someone is executed, or, less often, pardoned. You don't need to evoke faith or religious belief to oppose the death penalty. Many groups that are not religious in nature disagree with lawmakers and oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons. First, they argue that it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to lock someone up for life. Studies have suggested that this is true, mainly due to the cost of legal proceedings. The legal appeal process to which a convicted prisoner is entitled can cost up to two million dollars. Because of the court proceedings, many inmates are imprisoned for several years. It also costs quite a bit to feed, clothe, and house prisoners, and those on death row do not work. But one might argue
Mr. Nice - English book review
0/9/04 Mr. Nice English book review At the height of his career Howard Marks was smuggling consignments of up to thirty tons of marijuana, and had contact with organisations as diverse as MI6, the CIA, the IRA and the Mafia. Following a worldwide operation by the Drug Enforcement Agency, he was busted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison at Terre Haute Penitentiary, Indiana. He was released in April 1995 after serving seven years of his sentence. Told with humour, charm and candour, Mr Nice is his own extraordinary story. Howard Marks has truly lead an amazing life and I have enjoyed reading his autobiography, born in Kenfig Hill, Wales and raised there until becoming an oxford university student, studying physics, nobody would ever expect him to one day become Britain's most wanted man. The book keeps you attached, always asking yourself what's going to happen next? It seems hard to keep up with his endless aliases, always popping up in the book. Through his career he meets many different personalities in the smuggling business including Jim McCann an Irishman more often than not drunk and concluding every sentence spoken with foul language, an American named Ernie, Malak a supplier from Bangkok and countless others. The book is quite an interesting read not only in the perspective of Howard Marks' life but the world about him as he so kindly describes in detail
Recklessness can be defined as the conscious doing of an unjustifiable risk.
Recklessness can be defined as the conscious doing of an unjustifiable risk which one has either of the following states of mind: (1) He may know of the risk; (2) He may not have considered whether or not there was a risk or; (3) He may have considered whether or not there was a risk and wrongfully concluded that there was no risk. Recklessness can be separated into two (2) types: 1: Cunningham Recklessness and 2: Caldwell Recklessness. In the case of Cunningham recklessness, in order for one to be convicted of being reckless, he had to have known of the risk. Therefore requirement (1), as mentioned before in the various states of mind, is what is liable in determining if one was reckless under the Cunningham concept. In the Cunningham Case (1957) , the defendant removed a gas meter from an unoccupied house so that he could steal the money contained in it. The pipe was fractured and gas seeped into the neighbouring house where the victim inhaled it. The defendant was then charged under s. 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for maliciously administering a noxious substance (the gas) so as to endanger life. The court however, said that the term 'maliciously' meant 'wicked' and implied a foresight of the consequences. The defendant however did not realize that his actions would have put another person's life at risk and therefore did not know of the risk. In the
Discuss Influences on Decision Making Processes as They Relate to a Jury.
Discuss Influences on Decision Making Processes as They Relate to a Jury A fair trial relies on juries being rational and objective in the way they examine and weigh up evidence in order to come to a decision. Psychological studies have shown that a number of different processes can operate within groups which may distort the decision the jury makes. Polarisation and conformity also affect a jury's decision. Attractiveness, sex and the background of the criminal is also considered in changing the minds of the jury. The more attractive a person is, the less likely they are to be convicted. If a person is baby faced then they are too are likely to go without being convicted as they seem innocent as they are more childlike. The less attractive a person is the more likely they are to be convicted. Also the sex of the convict may change the mind of the jury. Males are convicted more often however; when women are convicted their sentence is usually longer. The jury expects violent or unruly behaviour from a male but not from a female therefore when it is seen in a female, they seem a bigger threat. In Saladin's study, he gave participants 8 photos of men and asked how capable they seemed of committing either murder or armed robbery. The attractive men were less likely to have been chosen to have committed either crime than the unattractive men. Other studies have proved this and
Defining the term word
Defining the term word What is a word? What is the definition of the term word? All these deceptively simple questions have led to debate among linguists. At its most simple, according to "A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics", by David Crystal, a word is "a unit of expression which has universal intuitive recognition by native speakers". However a word is so much more than that. The first difficulty in defining what the term "word" is that it has more than one definition. In fact, traditionally, there are three completely different and exclusive definitions for the term "word". To understand the difficulties in defining and differentiating the meanings of the term "word" we must first discuss each of the senses of the term. The first sense of the term "word" is known as word form. In word form, a word is a unit that can be physically defined, be it orthographically or phonetically, as a word. It is easier to see the boundaries between words in the orthographic word, the written word, than in the phonological, or spoken word. This is because of the visual spaces between words. However, even that is open to debate, as will be discussed later. In both forms, boundaries are identified by pauses and junctures between words. The second sense of the term "word" is known as the lexeme. "A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics" defines lexemes as being "the
'The actions of Nellie Hall alocal Birmingham Suffragette - source related study.
William Pearson Assignment 2: 'The actions of Nellie Hall a local Birmingham Suffragette 3) What has happened to Nellie Hall? Source d is a letter from prison; this shows that she has been sent there for a crime. So before this letter has been sent I can assume that she has committed a crime, been arrested, has had a trial in court then finally been sent to prison. The letter itself is unusual, it is a set printed letter where she can fill in space but it also has an extra comment at the bottom written by Nellie Hall. It was sent on 23rd July 1913, saying that she was in good health. Her statement at the bottom has several interesting parts to it. "I think that I might be allowed to have a letter from you." This suggests that she not only would like a letter but also really wants her family to write back to her in prison. It is not only addressed to her family but she also has added the word, 'all' which suggests she would like her suffragette friends to see the letter aswell. It also says: "I have 21 days 2nd division" This is where she is situated in the prison according to her crime. 2nd division is for political crimes showing she has done something against the government, which is common for a suffragette. It says she has 21 days, the length of her sentence, but she goes on to say that she hopes to be out soon. "I am not taking food and water. I hope to
In order for an individual to be found guilty of a crime, the prosecution, in the majority of cases, have to prove two elements, the 'actus reus' and the 'mens rea'.
In order for an individual to be found guilty of a crime, the prosecution, in the majority of cases, have to prove two elements, the 'actus reus' and the 'mens rea'. 'Actus reus' means the guilty act; 'mens rea' means the guilty mind or intention. There are some crimes where the actus reus alone is enough to convict someone without proving the element of intention. These are called crimes of strict liability. An example of a strict liability crime can be seen in Winzar v. Chief Constable for Kent (1983), where police were called to a drunken man in a casualty department. They took the man to their car outside where he was arrested for being drunk on a public highway. The court held that the offence did not require any mens rea and the defendant was found guilty. He had been drunk on a highway and the act of being drunk on a highway (the actus reus) was enough to convict. It is possible for a person to have the mens rea for a crime but not do the actus reus. For example if an individual goes into a house with a knife intending to kill and stabs a person that is in bed but it was later discovered that the person had already died from a heart attack, even though the individual did not kill the person, the mens rea for murder was there; he intended to kill. Even though the actus reus was not there, (he didn't kill the person) he is still guilty of attempted murder. Murder and
