Is the Law on Diminished Responsibility Satisfactory?
Is the Law on Diminished Responsibility Satisfactory?
Voluntary manslaughter, as established by the Homicide Act 1957, is determined by three sections: diminished responsibility, provocation, and suicide pact. These are all known as partial defences meaning that they do not give full acquittal of a sentence they only shorten that of murder to manslaughter. Diminished responsibility is established by Section 2 of the Homicide Act which states that “Where a person kills or is party to a killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing.”
It may be used as a defence to murder if the defendant can prove an abnormality of the mind, if, for example, the defendant is an alcoholic, or has a mental condition as in Byrne (1960), where the defendant had uncontrollable sexual desires. The defence is that the defendant does not have the necessary control over their actions, when compared to a reasonable person. Diminished responsibility has been criticised for a number of reasons, the very term ‘Diminished responsibility’ has been criticised by authorities such as the Butler Committee, who say that it is ‘not a medical fact relating to the accused’. There are also many other areas which makes this area of law controversial as I will be discussing.
Abnormality of mind covers a wide range of situations and was describes by Lord Cj Parker in the Court of Appeal in the case of Byrne (1960) as “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.” In Byrne (1960) the defendant who was a sexual psychopath, strangled to death and then mutilated a young woman. He was convicted of murder but the Court of Appeal felt that his condition came within the definition of diminished responsibility and so his conviction of murder was substituted for one of murder.
The main problem was that the medical experts had describes Byrnes condition as amounting to ‘partial insanity’ and the Court of Appeal had approved of this. However, in Seers (1984) it was held that comparisons with insanity are not helpful and should be avoided. In this case the defendant stabbed his estranged wife and claimed diminished responsibility on grounds of chronic reactive depression. The trial judge directed that for the defence to be successful Seers had to be bordering on the insane. He was found to be bordering insane and as a result his so his conviction of murder was substituted for one of murder.
Another problem with the law on diminished responsibility is that diminished Responsibility covers a wide range of mental conditions such as paranoia and epilepsy. Some conditions have been known for years, but some of the conditions have been recognised more recently such as ‘battered woman syndrome’ which was demonstrated in the case of Hobson (1998). In this case the defendant stabbed her alcoholic and abusive partner to death in 1992, during an argument. At the trial she claimed that she had acted in self-defence, and there was a subsidiary issue on provocation. Diminished responsibility was not specifically raised and the defendant was convicted. She appealed on the grounds of diminished responsibility based on battered woman syndrome which previously was not regarded as abnormality of mind until 1994. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. The problem with this area of law is that some conditions are not regarded as abnormality if mind until later on and so the development on this area of law is very slow which leads to people who have a genuine condition being punished for something they had no control over.
The Abnormality of mind must be caused by one of the matters set out in the brackets within section 2 (1) of the Homicide Act 1957. These are: a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, any inherent cause, induced by any disease or injury. Inherent cause means one which comes from within the defendant, as opposed to an outside factor and it does not have to be permanent. The important point is that there must be medical evidence given at the trial, of an abnormality of mind arising from one of the specified abnormality of the mind has to be such as to substantially impair the defendant’s responsibility for his actions. In Lloyd (1967) it was held that ‘substantial’ does not mean ‘total’, nor did it mean ‘trivial’ or ‘minimal’. It is something in between and it is up to the jury to decide if the defendant’s mental responsibility was impaired and if so, was it substantially impaired? In seers (1984) the court also considered the phrase ‘substantially impaired’ and …
The Objectives Of Criminal Laws
The Objectives Of Criminal Laws
Criminal laws were made to make a better system in our government. Through these laws, people may tend to act accordingly and perfectly to what the law will tell them to do. It will help them not just to have discipline but also by exercising these activities, they can have a life that’s free and right. That’s why we should be thankful that certain criminal laws are made, because of these stuffs we can have a better life without danger and harm. Of course, in order to have them effectively working in a town, local or even the whole country, we must first know the objectives of those laws.
Retribution. The criminals commit mistakes and because of that they are obliged to pay for what they have done. They did something bad to other people that lead to hurts and worst death of some, so they need to experience some disadvantages of it. This is the most obvious goal of these laws, to make pay those who need to pay.
Deterrence. There are two kinds of deterrence the personal and general one. This is that goal where they want to show the criminal that he has done something really wrong and that a penalty will be imposed to him, this is the personal category. This will help him to avoid himself from doing this again, it is like these laws will make the people learn from their mistakes. While the general category will be a warning to all people not to do what that criminal has done or else they will also experience the same thing.
Incapacitation. This is one of the most popular goals that these laws have achieved. It was designed to simply keep the criminals away from the society and from other people. Imprisonment, being in jail and even death penalty are just some of the examples of this incapacitation. It became very effective since it also scares people not to certain crimes that will surely bring them to jail because they don’t want to be away from their family and from the free life that they are having right now.
Rehabilitation. This aims in transforming a criminal to admit his mistakes and have that willingness to change and be renewed again. It is very popular for those who are alcoholics that they don’t can control it anymore that they can already try to drive under the influence of alcohols. With these cases, the will be rehabilitated in order to help them control themselves from these addictive stuffs. Also, the help of a DUI attorney in Michigan or in other towns will be needed for some legal matters.
These goals are made in order to check if these criminal laws will be effective or not. This is their way of measuring the results of their actions regarding to these crimes. In line with this, every one should still remember that even without these goals that will remind us about what to do or not, let’s still all be good to one another and never commit crimes.…
Does Your Roof Need Repairing? Check Out This Guide!
Unfortunately, you can’t trust roofing contractors to provide the best work and price. If you need to get the job done correctly, you have to figure Remodel Kitchen out what goes into doing roofing properly. The following article will teach you everything you need to know to tackle that roof repair.
Always be sure that you’re safe when you have to do any work on your roof. Don’t try to fix a leaking roof, for instance, while it is still storming outside. This is very dangerous. Therefore, if you have a leak while it’s raining, put a bucket down until the storm passes. Once it does, you can then get on top of your roof to fix the issue.
Always wear rubber-soled boots when working on your roof. Even on a dry day, you need a proper grip. It can be physically challenging to perform roof repairs.
Make sure that your grass is cut before the project begins. This way, if nails fall on the ground, they’ll be much easier to find. Your roofer may use a metal detector to locate lost nails, and this job will also go faster if your grass is freshly trimmed.
There are some questions you need to ask the roofer before you hire him. Ask about the number of nails that will be used for each shingle. Typically, you would want more than three. Ask about their policies and make sure you are happy with the answers you receive. If not, look somewhere else.
When selecting a roofer, ask loved ones for their experiences and recommendations. Ask others if they’re pleased with their work, with the overall quality of the chosen materials, and if the costs were fair. Ask as many questions as you can to get the best possible repair for your money.
As this article said in the beginning, it’s very important to learn what you can about getting a roof worked on correctly. This will help you make the most of the money you spend. Put the above tips to good use and your roof will look great for less.…
Miranda Rights Under Recent Supreme Court Cases
Miranda Rights Under Recent Supreme Court Cases
In a close 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has just released an important legal decision and update on one of the most recognized cases in U.S. legal history, Miranda v Arizona. As any follower of police or lawyer shows knows, the Miranda case is known for its inception of Miranda rights, those “right to remain silent” quotes that police officers must inform you of when you are arrested or questioned while under arrest. Even the most casual observer of the law has heard of Miranda, and most of us know that under it, we are not obligated to answer any questions from an arresting officer. Miranda was a landmark case in supporting the Constitutional 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. No person can be forced to answer questions that may incriminate themselves, and no person can be interrogated further by police once they have invoked their right to remain silent. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on June 1st, 2010 could change the way Miranda rights are used in the court room and during criminal arrests in the future.
In the original Miranda v. Arizona case, the defendant Ernesto Miranda signed a confession when the evidence showed that he did not know he had the right to remain silent or have an attorney present during questioning. The Court ruled in that case that, essentially, the police had bullied Miranda into the confession when they realized he didn’t know he had a right to remain silent. The Court’s opinion held that this right would be useless if the police did not inform a suspect of that right to refuse to answer questions or led him to believe he did not have such a right. Ultimately, a person accused of a crime has a constitutional right against self-incrimination, and the Miranda court decided that the confession the interrogating police officers got from Miranda due to his ignorance of these rights was unconstitutional. Incidentally, although Miranda’s confession was thrown out because of this, he was ultimately later convicted in a new trial. The Miranda court’s underlying reasoning and decision was later reviewed again in 2000 in Dickerson v. United States, and affirmed.
In this recent court case Berghuis v. Thompkins, a new wrinkle was added to the rights of a criminal defendant that were discussed in the Miranda case. In this case, the Court held that simply refusing to answer questions does not, by itself, require that the police immediately give up their questioning. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy stated that a criminal suspect who wants to invoke their Miranda right not to be questioned must do it unambiguously, simply remaining silent for certain questions, while answering others was not enough the Court said. Going forward, it appears that under the majority decision a criminal suspect must be perhaps more clear if they truly wish to invoke their right to remain silent. The dissent protested that under this legal holding suspects in a crime must now unambiguously invoke that right, which (counter-intuitively) would require them to speak to do so. While it is not yet clear how those fears will play out in future criminal cases, this new decision has at least a mild limiting effect on the rights of criminal suspects under Miranda to be able to avoid their answers being used against them if they choose to answer any questions.…
Which Individuals Often Seek Out A Theft Attorney?
Which Individuals Often Seek Out A Theft Attorney?
We can readily identify three groups of people who are often seeking the expertise of it. Criminal law is the branch of the law being practiced by them. However, his concentration is more on theft cases. Nowadays, we are seeing subspecialties in the main criminal law specialty, and this (‘theft law’) is one of those subspecialties. If you want someone who is familiar with the intricacies of theft law, it’s the theft attorney who you should be approaching. They know all the constitutional and statutory provisions that govern it. They are also well-versed when it comes to other previous cases that give precedent to any such case you may be facing now. Such is their familiarity that no other word could be used to describe them but specialists. More often than not, they started their career interning in law firms that specialized in these cases. In fact, you’d probably come across theft attorneys who have been handling nothing but theft cases throughout their career. It is by virtue of such experience that they qualify to be termed as expert theft attorneys. More often than not, they are famous in their locality or their city. Ask other lawyers, and they would even recommend him to you should you require a theft attorney. When we speak about the services of it, there are three identifiable groups of people who are most likely to seek them out.
It is most often sought by individuals who are charged or accused with committing it and are expected to go to court because of them. They could be innocent or guilty. The defense of these accused individuals have to be solid and credible, and that is where it comes in. The theft attorneys can draw on their familiarity with the law and other constitutional provision in order to mount said defense. The theft attorneys also tend to have good knowledge of the statutes they can cite when defending the said clients. They tend to dig deep and even look into past court cases for additional information. Theft cases handled by theft attorneys have a better chance of being resolved quickly in favor of the accused, so you should consider hiring these specialist instead of criminal lawyers who practice general law.
Victims of theft are also active in seeking out the services of these theft attorneys. Whenever they feel as though they have to do something to bring those people who stole from them to justice, they need a plan or a strategy. They can do that with the help of a theft attorney, and they can also possibly recover the items that have been stolen from them. The theft attorneys are usually very well placed, by virtue of their experience, to give such advice.
Workplace theft is also quite prevalent nowadays and, in an effort to curb this, rules or policies should be set. Thus, employers seek out theft attorneys to help them out in policy-making. Certain industries have fallen prey to various acts of theft in the workplace. The people trying to create anti-workplace theft policies often have to consult the theft attorneys, in order to be advised on ways in which they can craft policies that actually have the full backing of the law.…
Why The Representation Of A Criminal Lawyer Is Important
Why The Representation Of A Criminal Lawyer Is Important
The legal system is often very complicated, and can be daunting to anyone who is charged with a crime. You need to hire a criminal lawyer to represent you if you are facing prosecution. It is important for legal representation to be obtained as soon as possible after you suspect you will be charged with a crime. A good criminal lawyer will be able to disprove the prosecution’s case and raise the necessary reasonable doubt to achieve an acquittal in your case.
When you are charged with a crime, the wheels of justice begin turning almost immediately. You will likely need to arrange bail. You will be required to appear before a judge at an arraignment. A criminal lawyer can help you determine what actions will be taken. The lawyer will provide advice to help you map out a prudent course of action.
You may be released on bail after the arraignment while awaiting trial. If you are not released and must remain incarcerated, your attorney will be able to visit you in jail. Your conversations with an attorney are protected and confidential. Any advice obtained from a lawyer should be implemented, but some people have difficulty accepting the advice.
A defense lawyer has the right to be presented with evidence that could be used against you during trial. The discovery process can help the lawyer to build a good case for you. The attorney may arrange for depositions or other information gathering processes to use in court. These might include scheduling the appearance of expert witnesses and testing of evidence.
When your trial begins, your legal counsel is responsible for obtaining the best possible panel of jurors. The process involves skillful questioning during jury selection and may require the use of a jury consultant. Being able to develop fairly immediate rapport when questioning the jury pool can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case.
Your lawyer has the responsibility of reviewing the major points of the prosecutor’s case and determining where there are weaknesses or gaps. These issues must be presented in clear and understandable terms to the jurors through skillful questioning of witnesses, presentation of evidence or pointing out inconsistencies during closing arguments. Skill in reading the body language of others can be a key ingredient in a successful defense.
The legal professional must monitor the questioning by the prosecutor so that if questions are improperly phrased, they can be prevented from entry into the record of the trial. Even when the ruling of the judge is in opposition to the fortunes of your case, it may be possible to have such decisions reversed upon appeal if verdict is “guilty”. During and after an unsuccessful defense, it is the lawyer’s responsibility to take notice of potential instances in the case that could be argued in a higher court when the outcome in the initial case is undesirable.
A criminal lawyer takes great pleasure in the successful exoneration of their client, and when this is achieved it is certainly a cause for celebration. When a less desirable outcome occurs the work doesn’t end there. Luckily, in many guilty verdicts there will be grounds for appeal and this is something that shouldn’t be overlooked. When you retain the services of a good criminal lawyer you can expect your best interests to be accounted for either way.…
It Is Necessary to Place Limits on Democracy in Order to Promote Human Rights?
It Is Necessary to Place Limits on Democracy in Order to Promote Human Rights?
Ex Justice Michael Kirby defines democracy in Australia as:
[a] sophisticated form of government which involves the general ability of the will of the majority to prevail but in a legal and social context in which the rights of vulnerable minorities are respected and defended
It must be argued that this succinct statement illustrates, expressly and implicitly, the potential for an inextricable relationship between democracy and human rights. The defending of human rights can only exist within a democracy, and conversely, the ability of anyone to raise their hand and claim a human right to be defended is a fundamental element of a democracy.
What are “human rights”? It must be argued that human rights are a mere concept, intangible ideals, principals within the realm of philosophy. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights
It must be argued that there is a distinct difference between the concept of human rights and the interpretation and application of human rights in a social context.
The interpretation of our human rights can be derived from the UDHR, other HR treaties and subsequently our own state and federal laws. However the language used in these instruments is left intentionally vague and ambiguous to allow different meanings to be inferred from the words. As time progresses and the nature of a normative society changes, values, deviant and moral actions change, the law changes slowly after to accommodate for the change in society. Drinking alcohol and driving is a good contemporary example of this. When talking about The Constitution Justice Kirby says:
The words [of the Constitution] take on their colour with the change in circumstance and attitudes
So we are able to apply the concept of rights to our society through the judicial and legislative processes, which are the checks and balances within a democratic system. For example, we have a right to free speech at Article 12:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
But does that mean we are allowed to say anything we want, wherever we want? It would have to be argued that we do not as various pieces of legislation have been enacted to stop “hate speech” and “defamation”. This must be argued to be a policy consideration and a formal social control mechanism. This illustrates how human rights in their purest form have restrictions put on them when applied in a social context. Anti-Terrorism legislation in Australia and across the world has seemingly trampled over human rights with arguably deplorable and undemocratic notions such as preventative detention and the abandonment of due process of law. However it should be argued that this type of legislation is a reaction to a real or perceived problem to preserve public safety. The question has to be asked if this is an acceptable trade. It was Benjamin Franklyn who wrote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Is it necessary to restrict the democratic voting rights of offenders in prison? It must be argued that the democratic right of citizens of a country to have their say in the election process is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy and without it the country wouldn’t be a democracy. The Constitution Act implies this at s7 and s24 that the Senate and the House of Representatives be:
directly chosen by the people
It should be argued that the limits of this democratic process to certain members of society have been placed because of policy considerations involving social normative ideals. The “moral panic” drummed up in the press, fear and ignorance of the whole prison / rehabilitation process is a contributing factor.
It must be argued that the concept of eligibility is very important in the application of human rights in a democracy. Prisoners for example, are not eligible to vote, not eligible to liberty and so on. They have essentially lost the ability for those rights to be applied to them under certain circumstances for the sake of social order, punishment and protection. Does this concept of eligibility limit democracy? It should be argued that an action that is for the benefit of the majority of people and backed by the majority of people is a democratic action. As Justice Kirby says in the opening definition, democracy is the ability of the will of the majority to prevail.
What is “the majority”? The majority of any group is a complex and difficult question. There is the actual number of eligible voters, …