For simplicity, an impossibility defense is a criminal defense. It is occasionally used when an offender is accused of a criminal attempt which failed simply because the crime was legally or factually impossible to commit. On the other hand, criminal punishments are applicable for various purposes; it is done to enforce or encourage appropriate behavior which is deemed ethical by the society or family. In most cases, criminals are punished judicially through the use of fines, or use of custodial sentence or corporal punishments such as: being detained in prisons (Gurule et al., 2007). This paper shall, therefore, discuss various issues related to criminal defense and criminal punishments.
Specify the key points involved in the court determining the lawfulness of the use of force. Next, evaluate the level of objectivity inherent in each point that you have specified.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
All the attempts of formulating the principles of modern criminal law involve the appraisal of the types of behaviors which the community is attempting to discourage and those that are possible to discourage. Hence rules should be based upon ethics, which are generally acceptable. Thus the appraisal should not neglect the values of criminal law as a developmental instrument in the society. This aspect of criminal law commonly referred to as justification brings forth the question of how much force an individual is allowed to use in protecting their various interests. This question may not be answered without a review on the type of interests that an individual should be allowed to defend through the use of force. Also, the law is seemingly unclear as to what canons of blameworthiness a person should be held accountable. There are certain occasions where a permissible amount of force (Non-deadly force) is allowed to be used, and they include:
Self-defense
Defense of property
Prevention of crime
Apprehension of crime
Self-defense
This is a general rule in common law which allows an individual to use a reasonable amount of force to protect himself against another individual or a group of individuals who threatens them with physical injury. The language of many statutes varies from the definition of the common law, one of the characterizations of admissible force in self-defense is that it has to be sufficient to prevent the offense, against an individual. Consequently, the amount of defensive force which a person is permitted to use is proportionate with that which they are attempting to repel (Gurule et al., 2007). This impedes an individual from using force which is likely to cause serious bodily harm unless he or she is protecting himself from an equal danger.
Defense of property
Common law gave the owners of property the right to use a sensible amount of force where necessary to protect their property from damage or interference. The main function of this defense in common law is its applicability in prosecutions in the case of homicide: this enables the owner of property to fight in protecting his or her property without being deemed as an aggressor, this preserves grounds upon which he or she might justify his actions (Cole et al., 2018). More to that is that this defense has been narrowed down by the fact that the owner must not use more than reasonable force in protecting his property.
Preventing Crime
Historically, the use of force has been justified when the main purpose is the prevention of a criminal act. Different intentions provoke this form of force than when the actor is protecting his property or himself. If the interest is not personal but rather on the interest of the public in preventing criminal acts, thus the effect of crime-preventing allows an individual to use force in the prevention of crime. Moreover, the use of force is limited to various situations like when the act would constitute a breach of peace or felony.
Apprehension of crime
A necessary incident is the right of a law enforcer to arrest a criminal is the right to use force in arresting an offender. The law of justification in such a scenario is as necessary to effective police action as the law of arrest and is associated with many similar problems. Furthermore, the license of forcible detention has been available traditionally for private individuals that should encourage the court to assess this privilege with great caution.
Determine the fundamental difference between the castle doctrine and stand your ground types of criminal defenses. Justify the validity of each, and provide one (1) example of each to support your response .
The stand your ground and Castle Doctrine laws are confirmatory defenses for people charged with homicide. The Castle Doctrine is a common doctrine which argues that an individual has no duty to retreat when they are in their homes and are allowed to use a sensible amount of force to defend their property. Outside the home, they must retreat if they can, but before they use force (Kadish et al., 2016). On the other hand, stand your ground law does not have the requirement of retreating outside one's home, and it, therefore, allows an individual to use sensible force in case there is a belief of the threat. Use of deadly force is reasonable to understand your ground in certain situations like forthcoming death or great bodily harm.
Analyze the overall role that the double jeopardy clause plays within the trial system. Next, evaluate the general level of fairness of double jeopardy to the defense. Provide a rationale to support your response .
Double jeopardy is an amendment clause which "protects a defendant who is a defendant who has been acquitted of criminal charges from having to stand trial again for the same crime." For instance, if there is an individual who has been committed a felony and was acquitted of the same, they cannot stand trial again as per the double jeopardy clause. Nonetheless, there exists one exception in regards to this clause; a perpetrator may be charged for the same crime by different potentates. Double jeopardy is indeed fair. Injustice, fairness is relative and is not quantifiable. The general degree of fairness in relations to double jeopardy has been the source of various debates. This has generated different opinions as people take different sides on this matter. People are usually happy when they feel that the court has served justice. Nevertheless, the justice system is subjective, and people may judge based on their emotions or how lawyers present their arguments.
Specify the basic features of the adversarial system. Next, support or critique the value of the adversarial system within the criminal law system in the United States. Justify your response.
Basic features of the adversary system include the following:
A neutral and passive decision maker
Party presentation of evidence and arguments
A trial designed to emphasize clash between parties
Parties have equal opportunities to present and argue their cases
Rules of professional conduct designed to prevent abuses.
Lawyers often plainly go to war in an adversarial system. They act enthusiastically to protect their clients, and some go to various extremes to cover up evidence (Cole et al., 2018). In the adversarial system, the guilty often are not prosecuted, and this weakens justice. Justice should be objective, but the adversarial system dents the objectiveness of the law.
Argue for or against the right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Provide a rationale to support your response
The right to speedy trial guarantees an individual the right to get a speedy trial. This might arise immediately after a person is blamed legally for a crime, and has either been arrested or indicted. The defendants are kept out of jail for an undefined time span before their trial. A lot of people have problems with this clause due to the many issues which arise from it. Destruction and loss of evidence, disappearing of witnesses, together with the disappearing of witnesses are associated with this clause. As a final point, this clause is in favor of the defendant and not the plaintiff, and this is because aggressive defendants intimidate the plaintiffs.
Reference
Gurule, J., Paust, J. J., Cherif Bassiouni, M., Scharf, M. P., Sadat, L., & Zagaris, B. (2007). International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. Carolina Academic Press.
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2018). The American system of criminal justice. Cengage Learning.
Kadish, S. H., Schulhofer, S. J., & Barkow, R. E. (2016). Criminal law and its processes: Cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
