Rights of the Criminally Accused Essay

allows them to attain the counselling and treatment they require. Before a verdict can be rendered, the courts administer a rigorous test and ensure that those individuals who gain the benefit of this defence truly deserve it. The defence of not criminally responsible remains very pertinent in today’s society simply because society recognizes a need to differentiate a true criminal from one who does not intend the consequences of his or her actions. However, there are many misconceptions and issues

an amendment in the Bill of Rights which protects criminals rights, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For one to completely analyze the Fifth Amendment, one must evaluate and interpret the origin of the Amendment, modern uses and abuses, and current effectiveness of the law. To evaluate, the Fifth Amendment had a rather interesting history, stemming from the declaration of independence. Colonists were tired of unfair trials, no trial rights, or no trials at all. The Fifth

result to mental disorder, is incapable of understanding the nature and quality of a criminal act, or of recognizing that it was wrong, should not be convicted. Bill C-54 the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act deals with the accused who has been found Criminally Responsible because of mental disorder. Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) is defined in Section 16 of the Canadian Criminal Code, stating that if someone is deemed NCR he or she cannot be held accountable for the offence they’ve committed

287 of the criminal code infringed the rights of section 7 in the charter of rights and freedoms. Section 7 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” (Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982) This declared that abortion could ne longer be considered a criminal offence because it was unconstitutional and violated one’s rights under section 7. The oakes test would

Arshdeep Kaur 212127767 

 Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) is a legal defence by excuse mostly used in countries such as Australia and Canada. It is well stipulated in criminal laws of such countries where a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally responsible for breaking the law on the grounds that they are were mentally ill at the time when they committed the criminal offence (Penney, 2013). The issue of NCRMD may only arise on the following

“ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial. Case Significance: The court deciphering between criminal negligence and

On November 2, 2000 Erma Stewart was arrested along with twenty six others because authorities were under the suspicion that they had been involved with the distribution of an illegal substance. Stewart was jailed and had her bond set to $70,000. She was then appointed a public defender to handle her case. However, Stewart claims that the attorney pressured her into pleading guilty despite her insistence that she was innocent. After spending a month in jail with the knowledge that her children had

affirmative defense for the defendant,” (Grachek, 2006). Currently there are four forms of the insanity defense which presently exist:M ’Naghten, irresistible impulse, substantial capacity, and Durham. M’ Naghten insanity defense also called the right-wrong test, for the reason that it is cognitive and focuses on the offender’s

system. The judicial system ensures that children be punished for their crimes and that the court is also made certain that the child has the same rights as an adult. Although they are sentenced fairly, imprisonment seems to have a lesser effect on the offender than community service. The judges are also likely to prioritise helping and rehabilitating the accused, not just punishing them (Bowen, 1994, p117). From studies completed i.e. studies completed in 2013, found that juveniles are three times more

has become the shorthand for a jurisprudential shift from state toward federal authority; the Warren Court offered an expansive understanding of the role federal courts could play in enabling access for a host of new claimants seeking an array of rights” (Resnik 2012). Earl Warren’s court and jurisprudence is best known for cases on expansion of federal habeas corpus, expansion on the law of criminal procedure, expansion on free expression and exercise of religion, and desegregation public schools