Case Analysis: The Murder Of Corey Davis

On the fateful day of July 28, 1999, six year old Tiffany Eunick was beaten to death by a 6 foot tall and 160 pound Lionel Tate. The autopsy report showed that Tate reportedly stomped on Eunick so hard her liver was lacerated, and the young girl sustained multiple bone fractures so severe that she was pronounced dead at the hospital hours later. Tate was controversially convicted of felony murder and thus sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. Now why was this sentence so controversial? Because Lionel Tate was only twelve years old at the time of the murder. How do we determine mental competence of someone whose brain is still developing? How could someone who has not even finished puberty possibly understand the sever implications of such a brutal crime? How can we possibly try a juvenile as an adult when juveniles are proven to have diminished impulse control? This paper will discuss the history of charging juveniles of adults, discuss the issues that make this practice wrong while negating opposing arguments, and explain the various consequences that come with charging juvenile offenders as adults.

This case was one of truth and justice. It becomes evident when the Juror 9 says to Juror 10. ‘Do you think you have a monopoly on truth?' [Juror 9, page 8] The fact is, nobody really knows what the truth is, and at the end of the play, still nobody does. The boy may have been guilty, but as Juror 8 pointed out, who were they to make that assumption? Most of the Jurors had taken for granted that what the prosecution had told them was the truth. Through much discussion the Jurors realised that this may

Regarding whether the defendant CJ can be charged with ‘Murder’, depends on several different factors. In front of the law CJ is not legally able to be charged with criminal responsibility, being only thirteen and not above fourteen years of age. Thus, in this situation, ‘Doli Incapax’ acts as a rebuttable presumption. This essentially means that because of CJs age, his behaviour is under the context of being ‘incapable or unable to form an intent to commit a crime’. Nevertheless, an assumption is made by a court that CJ is ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This statement is valid, unless and until the other party strongly contests the decision, and proves otherwise. Rebuttable presumptions are regularly linked with ‘Prima Facie’ evidence, which involves evidence that is set before the trial. This kind of proof is extremely important, as it needs to sufficiently prove the defendant’s claim, unless there is substantial inconsistent evidence presented at trial favouring the prosecutor. As the Children law states, the test for ‘Doli Incapax’ involves ‘prosecution must rebut the presumption of doli incapax as an element of the prosecution case, the child knew the act was seriously wrong as opposed to naughty, and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be strong and clear beyond all

Crimes happen all the time. But when it happens to young children who have no way of defending themselves, and hasn’t lived their life to the fullest, it becomes a whole other thing. 
Kids are innocent, and nobody ever wants to see them hurt. That is why it was such a big shock, when the crime of the century was a kidnapping and murder of an infant.

The prosecution’s case relies on proving that Blyton was not acting in self-defence and that he made a conscious decision to kill his father. This argument is supported partially by the fact that when Blyton was rushed, Livingstone no longer had possession of the knife that made his initial assault threatening. Furthermore, Blyton gave 6 other versions of the event to various people which do not mention that he was acting in

This article is about a 15 year old boy, Juaquan Hall, being found guilty of first-degree murder and armed robbery. August of 2015, Ramiro "Tony" Izquierdo, was walking his blind sibling, Javier Izquierdo, back from a market in Liberty City whenever he was shot by Hall. Javier has a rare eye cancer that made him blind and Tony Izquierdo was his primary caretaker. At the time of the shooting, Hall was only 14. He has not yet been sentenced. Prosecutor, Alicia Priovolos, said, "He was not a child." "He knew exactly what he was doing." I agree with this, it seems like Hall had it out for Tony Izquierdo. At the trial, prosecutors brought an eye witnesses who saw Hall shoot Izquierdo. They also found his jacket near the scene of the accident. Hall

The murder weapon was supposedly a one-of-a-kind knife, but Juror 8 had the same knife in his pocket that he picked up at a pawn shop a few blocks away from the boy’s house. Even though buying and selling switchblades was illegal. Also, Juror 8 held a vote where if everyone voted guilty, Juror 8 would change his vote and send it into the judge. While Juror 9 was the one to change his vote and allow the talk to continue, it never would’ve happened if not for Juror 8. Lastly, Juror 8 took a risk by trying to put together all the witnesses’ testimony. He guessed at how long an el train took to pass a point and then put with the unlikelihood of the man hearing “I’m going to kill you.” All these claims could’ve meant a guilty verdict if not for Juror

Due to negative aspects that were presented in cases such as the Corey Davis case, the effectiveness of the Australian Legal System in accomplishing justice began to be viewed to demonstrate flaws in certain occasions by the Australian public. The Australian legal system aims to achieve equality and fairness towards the citizens of Australia to avoid anarchy within the nation. This is accomplished by set rules and laws that are created by the government. However, if these rules and laws are to be broken by an individual or a group of people living within the borders of the country, they may face legal consequences that include getting a fine, imprisonment, a life sentence or in some occurrences, a combination of these forms of punishment. In the Corey Davis case, an eleven year old boy that is identified as ‘W’ is sent to trial for committing an offence towards a six year old boy. An outline of the events in the Corey Davis case will be further explored as well as the involvement of the police, the conduct of the court system throughout the investigation of the case and its influence in achieving justice, and a summary of the trial. Furthermore, the debate about the current age limit for doli incapax and whether it is appropriate for modern society will be discussed as the Corey Davis case raised arguments about this topic. The Australian legal system aims to achieve justice, however certain instances such as the Corey Davis case have proved that it may occasionally

Switching viewpoints to paternal filicide, a local case in Fresno included the murder of 9 children of Marcus Wesson. He had eleven children with his wife Elizabeth, and seven more with his daughters and nieces. Wesson also abused his children and forced them to believe that he was God. The preaching told to the family, “weaved a dogma of polygamy and incest from his interpretations of the Bible and Seventh Day Adventist beliefs” (CBS news). Wesson’s surviving son’s and daughter’s recollected stories of cruel and unusual punishments.

While all types of child homicide have devastating effects and consequences, there are still distinctions in the crime, based on when it is committed. Bartol & Bartol (2014) discuss these two

The guilty side argued mainly off of emotions and in some cases intimidation. The guilty argued how an eyewitness saw the boy do it, though she was 60ft away from the scene without glasses and seeing through a train cart window. The rebuttal was the facts that this is not possible under the conditions. The response though was an eyewitness is all that matters to me. The response made a juror go to the other side to not-guilty. The flaws with the guilty sides were in biases and the human conditions of wanting to have someone put down. Man is barbaric in nature, though we can suppress our inner thoughts some choose not to and we can see this with the last juror who only wanted to boy put down due to his hard heart. At the last bit of the film,

This case is about Jasmine who was able to make solid life choices when she was under the company of Jeremy and was clearly over the age of 18. Jeremy and Jasmine were both influenced by a horror movie to commit the Richardson family murder. The 12 year old girl was very much aware of her actions and decisions as well as Jeremy who is over the age of eighteen, who should have informed her that killing her family is wrong instead of joining her to successfully carry out the murder that has been presented in front of the court today,

The defense side had more credible evidence. They had more common sense with what they had to present. The prosecutors won the case. The defense side had more evidence from the story/movie. The verdict wasn’t fair because people just voted on what the story side and not on what evidence was presented.

However the conviction was upheld as the act of holding the girls as a human shield while firing at the police officers was the initial act which caused the girl to be in a position to be shot and killed, therefore the conviction was upheld as the Actus reus was gained by the causation of the girls death as the chain of causation had not been

Unlike adults, children cannot be punished even for committing serious crimes such as murder because the legal system indicates that young children cannot be held responsible for such crimes. There are biological, cognitive, and emotional or social development factors behind this policy. The biological argument for this policy holds that a child below six years would be excused from responsibility for their actions because their part of the brain that helps in strategizing, planning, and organization is not fully developed(Berger, 2014) . This argument further holds that it will be unfair to expect a child to have decision making and organizational skills levels as that of adults whose brains have been fully built. Since a child 's brain is not finished being built, they cannot be totally rational; instead, they rely on the brain 's emotional parts. In this scenario under consideration, it is clear that the child who killed the other seemed to have strongly responded with a gut response and as such he had not evaluated the consequences of whatever he was doing. Neuropsychologists have found out that the frontal lobe is involved in many of criminal culpability aspects, and therefore since a child 's frontal lobe is not fully developed, he or she cannot be criminally culpable (Berger, 2014).