In any legal system, there is a notion that the chief end to be achieved is justice. Clearly no one would advocate for an unjust legal system, but what if the clear distinction between just and unjust is not so clear? What if there are diametrically opposed moral principles supporting competing arguments? On three occasions, the Supreme Court of Virginia has declined ruling on whether the relationship with an assailant 's wife deprives a defendant of the right to self-defense. The Supreme Court of Virginia should deny a defendant the right to claim self-defense when the following elements are present: (1) the defendant is charged with murder, (2) the defendant was in the act of sexual intimacy with the victim’s spouse, (3) the victim was …show more content…
It is in the public’s interest to maintain a predictable standard of acceptable behavior. Without such a standard, society will fall into chaos. There are two traditional, primary means for integrating moral reasoning into the analysis of criminal law. The first is requiring a defendant to have a culpable mental state for most crimes. The second is the doctrine of affirmative defenses. There are two types of Affirmative defenses: justifications and excuses. In effect, if a defendant can establish a defense, the defendant should be acquitted because society believes he took the right or at least a tolerable action. Excuses, invoke the notion that while what the defendant did was not justified, the defendant “should not be held accountable for his wrongdoing because he is not to blame for it.” Despite the fact that the criminal law is essentially a moral enterprise, the legally-trained actors in the criminal justice system rarely explicitly examine exactly what moral principles the system is enforcing. One reason for the absence of moral analysis is that most lawyers are not trained in moral philosophy. Generally, legal education has never seriously attempted to incorporate moral principles into instruction.” Another explanation for the absence in moral reasoning in the criminal law is that there is no need for any deep moral debate concerning the right or wrong of
The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican
Glenn Joseph Raynor v. State of Maryland. Case number 12-K-08-001527. Argued: April 8, 2014. Decided: August 27, 2014
Criminology and the criminal justice system have framed a “taken-for-granted, common-sense” understanding of ‘crime’ and the ‘criminal’ (Tierney, 2010). ‘Crime’ is commonly understood as a violation of the criminal law; originating from religion and the sin of God and then moving towards Classicalism. Classicalism rests on the assumption of free will and recognises rational choice of the individual. It influences much of our system of justice today; especially aspects of due process. It argues that criminality is therefore part of nature; and order is maintained through law and punishments. We can see this through Beccaria’s approach of certainty, celerity and severity (Beccaria, cited in Newburn, 2013, pp116). Positivism, associated with theorists such as Lombroso, offered more of a scientific approach in identifying the causes of crime and could recognise impaired ability such as mental illness. It argues that ‘crime’ is
Courts play a vital role in the Criminal Justice System in America, however; understanding how the courts work and function is essential. Even the general public should have a basic knowledge regarding the similarities and differences of the jurisdiction and structure of our dual court system – federal and state. In addition, there are ethical and diversity issues that can be experienced by each of the courts that could possibly impact the courts’ functioning.
while at the same time not talk over the reader’s head or bore them to death with legal writing. Mr. Forsythe has collected original research that has exposed new pieces of evidences about important problems dealing with the legal reasoning choices and the pieces of evidences mentioned in the people’s majority opinions.
The Supreme Court of the United States did not apply sound reasoning in formulating their final opinion in Reed v. Reed. Even though, the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous in ruling the Idaho statute unconstitutional because of violation to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The reason why I believe that they did not apply sound reasoning in Reed v. Reed is because the level of scrutiny applied. The Supreme Court applied the rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny. Commonly, when the Supreme Court applies the rational basis test to a law, the law passes because it can be proven that it is “rationally related to a legitimate government interest” . There was no precedent for this case because it was the first time that the Supreme Court heard a case on discrimination against women in violation of the Equal Protection Clause( 404 U.S. 71, 72 ).”
If we examine some arguments presented from both sides, opponents of the capital punishment claim that executing someone is nothing more than an immoral, state-authorized killing which undervalues the human life and destroys our respect for our government which itself says that killing is wrong. But the supporters of the death penalty think that certain murderers
There are similar reactions for these two types of criminals that applies to one’s moral self when committing such a perpetration. Modern morals apply to the wrongness of actions. When one is in a situation of crime, he or she often thinks of the outcome and morals of the consequences. This is where the rational choice theory comes into play. A rational choice theory perceives the human as one whose
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. Thieves generally steal in order to secure money, but likewise honest laborers work in order to money. The attempts to explain criminal behavior by general drives and values such as the money motive have been, and must completely to be, futile, since they explain lawful behavior as completely as they explain criminal behavior. They are similar to respiration, which is necessary for any behavior, but which does not differentiate criminal from noncriminal behavior. (Sutherland, 1974: 75-76)
As someone in support of statehood for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, this case holds special significance. I am a firm believer that Puerto Rico has been treated unjustly as a territory by the United States, and this has resulted in poor living conditions for its citizens. To deny a sovereign power to enforce laws within its territory is only one of the many issues the Commonwealth faces. For these reasons, I write this brief of amicus curiae in support of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The first rationale is that the crime committed must have been done involuntary. This could mean that the person was forced by someone else to commit the crime. The second rationale is that there is an excuse rather than a justification towards committing the crime. What is meant by this is
Morality in relation to law is a matter of necessity; a legal system that lacks a moral structure is likely to produce unfair and unpredictable results, outcomes that any feasible system should aim to avoid. In order to fully understand the role of morality in law one must first consider the concept of natural law; a law put in place by intrinsic moral guidelines. The impact of this natural law on man-made law must also be considered; how does the justice system deal with conflicting natural and man-made laws? Additionally, one must recognise the progression of society and how the law has continued to be applied despite changing morals and social situations, made evident by Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. The relationship between morality and
According to this Constitution, every person has the right to life and the right to equality. With a successful defence of necessity for the murder of an innocent person, these basic human rights would be infringed upon, which is legally unacceptable. Thus, a case should fail when using the defence of necessity for the murder of an innocent person.
Principals of humanity and justice form the foundation of the entire legal system. Elementary considerations of justice form the echelon of