Describe the Extent to Which Recent Reforms to Murder in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Are a Change for the Better but Have Not Necessarily Satisfied Those Who Campaigned for Change.

The American Flag is perhaps the most symbolic piece of art representing the United States; the 50 stars represent the 50 states; the colors symbolize valor, purity and justice; and the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies. But for some, these stripes also represent the 2.2 million people held in the American criminal justice system, moreover they represent the disproportionate rate that minorities in the U.S. are incarcerated. What some consider the greatest democracy in the world, is really a camera-obsucra, inverting the reality of what freedom and justice mean in the United States. Nixon’s war on drugs during the 1970’s, that declared drugs as the most important public enemy, leading to the spike in racial and ethnic

Defences for Murder There are only three partial defences for murder; suicide pact, provocation-the loss of self control and reaction must be instantaneous and diminished responsibility. Amongst the three mentioned two are most frequently used, these are provocation and diminished responsibility, and only one full defence, self defence. These defences are used to reduce the sentence charge by the defendant to manslaughter from murder. In the following text I will be examining how men use provocation and diminished responsibility to walk free from murder.

With regards to the issues mentioned above the Law Commission proposed that murder should be reformed by dividing it up into two separate offences; first degree murder; and second degree murder. First degree murder would cover cases where the D intended to kill and where D intended to inflict serious harm and was aware of the risk of death. Second degree murder would include cases where the D intended to do serious harm but was not aware there was a risk of

The specific aims and purposes of criminal law is to punish criminals, and prevent people from becoming future criminals by using deterrence. “Having a criminal justice system that imposes liability and punishment for violations deter.” (Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley, Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation, Oxford Journal of Legal studies, volume 24, No. 2 (2004), pp. 173-205). Criminal law

The ‘loss of control’ tests were formulated as a response to the criticism of the ‘irresistible impulse’ test, whose title was even characterized as misleading by Abraham Goldstein. This new tests have a wider scope, since they encompass situations were a person has lost the power to make choices irrespective of the source that led to this loss. The emerged ‘Parson’s rule’ stresses the need for a causal link between the condition suffered by the defendant and the criminal offence committed, an element that was, also, present in the ‘M’Naghten rule’. Moreover, the test’s unfortunate criterion that the mental disease must have ‘solely’ caused the subject’s act, has been interpreted as meaning ‘primarily’ to ensure the intended scope of the

Our criminal justice system has over time implemented and changed the means of sentencing and punishment for crimes. In the United States plea deals are accountable for 90% of criminal cases. A plea deal is an agreement between prosecutor and defendant in whom the defendant accepts a guilty plea to a charge and in return receives some type of concession from the prosecution. As we have moved forward in the judicial system and now have the ability to look back on previous cases, plea deals have become more controversial. The majority of awareness in this area has been used to look deeper into false confessions, grazing right over the fact that false confessions are a large part plea deals. A controversy arose when many refused to believe that situational factors during interrogations and dispositional factors inherent to the suspects could result in false confessions. (Redlich, 2010)

However, it could be argued that offenders may abuse this defence as a means of having their sentence reduced. A problem with the use of this defence by offenders is that their victim is not present to dispute their version of events. Unless there are witnesses to the events that take place it is difficult to refute the statements of the offender that they were provoked. The defence may also (in the absence of the victim) denigrate the character of the victim in their attempts to paint him/her as someone who is highly likely to cause a loss of control by an ordinary person. In criminal cases the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and in the absence of a witness to the crime it is difficult to prove that the offender was not provoked such that an ordinary person would lose control and in turn form the intent to kill or cause really serious bodily harm.

This essay will screen through the changes made in major areas of Criminal Justice System after the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report published and attempts to address changes that have already implemented, the supposed and actual outcomes, and effectiveness of these changes in tackling institutional racism mainly based on qualitative academic debates.

From the Oval Office to the campaign trail to the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, and cities across the country, criminal justice reform was a prominent topic of discussion in 2015. But will all of that talk result in any action in 2016?

However, in order for the purpose of partial defence for murder to be protected and to guard against abuse. The Law Commission decide to advocate the reform of the defence of provocation so that decisions like the one in the case of R v Doughty (1986) 83 Cr App 319) would no longer be followed. This was a case of a father who killed his seventeen day old child. The father was to take care of the child because the mother was in hospital in need of intensive care…. Because of cases like this, one might be easily persuaded to support the argument that killing in response to words or conduct should always be

The Criminal Justice System, a system the British government set up to deal with the treatment of law-breakers, has three main goals to achieve social order, these are, (1) enforcing criminal law, (2) maintaining law and order in the society, and (3) helping victims. This may seem to be a well thought of system, but like any other organisation, there are flaws, and one of the major flaws is discrimination, and the bias that stems from discrimination.

In the United States the degrees by which a person can be charged with killing another person vary; the degrees of murder include first, second, and third degree murder, the definitions of which can vary in legal terms from state to state. These charges are considered to be legally separate from voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide which each have their own definitions (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). Each type of murder, manslaughter and homicide is determined by intent and negligible behavior and each will be examined in this paper (Cole et al., 2014).

Scottish Criminal Justice Scottish criminal justice is a very complicated are of study. There are many different topics of thought that surround the Scottish criminal justice system, in terms of both physical and mental areas. The criminal justice system stems out into a number of different other subject areas mainly because criminal justice affects so many different fields in society. It’s not just simply about police arresting criminals, the accused going to court and ending up the criminal goes to prison.

The Court of Appeal can sometimes pay lip-service to s 8 and quash convictions because the jury were not clearly directed that the test of intention is subjective9. Nevertheless, originally an objective test was used to decide oblique intention in DPP v Smith10 which widened the MR of murder. The House of Lords held that the accused was guilty of murder for two reasons. Firstly, because death or grievous bodily harm was foreseen as a likely result of the accused’s unlawful act. Secondly, the accused was deemed to have foreseen the risk which a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have foreseen. The second ground for the House of Lords’ decision had been widely criticised as it introduced an objective element in the meaning of intention.11TheVickers12 has modified by DPP v Smith that the mental element in murder requires proof of an intention to kill or cause GBH, where the probability of foreseeing can be defined as exceeding a certain degree, is equivalent or alternative to the necessary intention. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be convicted of murder if it is established that he had intended to kill or create grievous bodily harm. In considering the construction of s1(1) [Homicide Act 1957], it can be said that an intention to cause GBH at least evidenced a willingness to

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.