Category: Criminal Law

A Civil and Criminal case is very different, yet many individuals have a tendency to overlook that. The word litigation means resolving disputes within the court. The first difference between filing a case whether it is civil or criminal depends on who can file a case in the first place. In a criminal case, the state is the one who is represented by a district attorney or by a lawyer called a prosecutor and is the one who is the one that files the court case. If the state claims that a person has broken a law, the state asks for a punishment that is given to them by the court. The punishment can be jail time, probation, fines or another form of punishment. In a civil case, the punishment can be fined, and minimal jail time. In a Civil case, the plaintiff or litigant only needs to convince the judge or jury that what they are pleading is true. In a Criminal case, the state must convince the judge or jury that the crime that was committed was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

A civil case begins when a person called the plaintiff, claims that another person or the defendant has failed to carry out a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are also called “parties” or “litigants.” The plaintiff may ask the court to tell the defendant to fulfill the duty, or to pay for the harm done or sometimes even both. Civil cases are brought in both state and federal courts. An example of a civil case in a state court would be if a citizen sued another citizen for not living up to a contract. For example, if Apple enters into a contract to sell a specific amount of phones to a Verizon store for an agreed-upon price and then fails to deliver the phones, forcing Verizon to buy it elsewhere at a higher price, Verizon might sue Apple to pay the extra costs incurred because of the Apple’s failure to deliver; these costs are called damages. If these parties were from different states, however, then that suit could be brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction if the amount in question exceeded the minimum required by statute $75,000.

A criminal case begins when a person is accused of a crime and is generally charged in a formal accusation which is called an indictment for felonies, serious crimes or information for misdemeanors. The government, on behalf of the people of the United States, will prosecute the case through the United States Attorney’s Office. If the person is charged with a federal crime, a state’s attorney’s office will prosecute state crimes. In cases, there may not be a specific victim of the crime that was committed. For example, the State Government arrest and prosecute people violating laws against driving while intoxicated because society regards that as a serious offense that can result in harm to others. Many people wonder if destruction of property is a misdemeanor of a felony.

Destruction of property can be a misdemeanor and or a felony, depending on the value or kind of the property that was destructed. In my case the property that I “destructed” was a motor vehicle, and was worth more than $250, so therefore, I committed a felony. If the property involved was not worth more than $250 or was not a motor vehicle, the offense is considered a misdemeanor.

The concept of equality requires equity to prevail. However, the history of social development is itself the past of inequality – between countries, race, culture, class, caste, faiths and sexual orientation. In between this chaos, the issue of women’s rights reveals itself most prominently, cutting through all the stratums of social arrangement. In this regard, it is pertinent to quote German philosopher and social scientist Friedrich Engels who, in his classical writing ‘Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State’ very aptly stated that, ‘Woman was the first human being that tasted bondage. Woman was a slave before slavery existed’. Milestones like the Suffragette Movement and gaining the right to vote, to employment rights, property rights, rights governing divorce and marriage to child-care and medicine is the paved way of feminist struggle through the years, all for the achievement of equality in its broadest sense.

It would not be getting too far ahead of ourselves if we note that legislation based on equal rights affects the very values of society, impacting not just the way we vote, but the way we work, live and function as a family, the way we access education, healthcare and justice. The guarantee that the Constitution of India provides of equal rights to women, is often inconsistent with the harsh reality of the Indian society and the effect of its cultural ‘rules, regulations and guidelines.’ Women in India, who were held in quite high regard in the Vedic ages till pretty much towards the end of the Mughal empire, had to begin their struggle for equality afresh in the 20th century, during the quest for independence from colonialism as their condition had only gotten worse in the 200 years of British rule. Suppressed by evils such as the practices of ‘Sati’, deprivation of right to education and inheritance rights, and ‘child-marriage’ for a prolonged period of time, they tried to emerge as strong individuals once more, led by western educated leaders like B.R. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Savitribai Phule. These individuals, amongst others like Ishwarchand Vidyasagar and Mahadevi Verma encouraged women to step out and away from the constraints of the four-walls of the house that they had been bound into for years and enter the public sphere in the fight for Independence, for starters. All Indian ideals, tenets, nationalism and cultural heritage were glorified through the allusion of ‘Mother India’.

It was through abovementioned channels that perhaps for the first time in modern, independent India, the idea that a woman is part of the larger Indian tapestry as a legal citizen, took root. The post-colonial modern era in India can be pointed out by sweeping changes such as neo-liberal policies and globalization which has resulted in the leaps and bounds in technological development. Further increase in the quorum of women participants engaged in public spheres like business enterprises, international platforms, multi-national careers like advertising and fashion, finds its base in the better opportunities which have originated from the free movement of goods, capital and ideas. These ideas often question the nature of prevailing laws – for instance, do rights by themselves in their existence guarantee justice; has our legal system kept up with social change; and other such related issues. The current spate of women centric legal reform in India needs to be examined from various perspectives.

When direct or indirect cruelty, whether mental or physical, is inflicted on women, it is a crime against them. Each day, a woman stands at a risk of being a victim of seemingly small but heinous crimes such as are eve-teasing, molestation, bigamy, fraudulent marriage, enticement of married women, abduction and kidnapping, rape, harassment at their workplace, domestic violence, dowry death, female infant and child abuse and abuse of elderly female etc. Almost every woman has very unfortunately, have had to gain a tolerance towards the feeling of being mistreated, trivialized, kept out, put down, ignored, assaulted, laughed at or discriminated against because of her gender, having experienced it regularly . If women are to implement their preferences, rights and freedoms, then it is essential that their empowerment occur not only within their personal spheres, but also in the broader spheres of the community and the state .

The National Crime Records Bureau of India had notified that the reported occurrences of crime and offences against women augmented by 6.4% in 2012, which boiled down to the fact that a crime against women is committed every 3 minutes .

Taking a serious note of public criticism and the inadequacy of the law of crimes against women manifested in a number of judgements of the Apex Court and the nation’s failure to safeguard the rights of the innocent victims of those heinous crimes against humanity, it became pertinent to make serious amendments to the criminal law of the country. In light of the abovementioned startling facts and figures which were made public, the Justice Verma Committee was formed. In its report, this Committee suggested certain comprehensive amendments to be introduced in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 materialised these suggestions by introducing several new provisions defining newer crimes against woman and introducing penalties for the same, and increasing some existing penalties.

I stand in negation of the resolution to improve the educational standards for inmates not because inmates do not deserve a second chance, but because this education will not provide them a sufficient second chance for the following two reasons: (say both bullet point titles) Just because they will have an education, that doesn’t protect them from the prejudice of employer’s.

Nothing earns a trip to the trash can faster than an ex-convict’s job application displaying a past criminal record. Even after paying their societal dues, “ex-convicts still face numerous economic punishments affecting how much they can earn, and what fields they will enter. These factors boost recidivism rates, ruining the exoffender’s chances of becoming a productive member of society again. ”Six states bar ex-felons from public employment, and in many others, any kind of educational, legal, medical or real estate job is also out of the question. One measure of prevailing attitudes can be found in a 2007 “Christian Science Monitor” article. According to the newspaper, two-thirds of employers surveyed in five major cities would not hire an exoffender. Future employers will not see the college credit that other regular applicants will have, they will instead be drawn only to the criminal history Education doesn’t work, Reentry programs work.

Why do so many ex-offenders become repeat offenders? Statistics compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington D.C., indicate that ex-offender employment is a critical factor in whether recently released federal inmates are successful. Of the 262,000 federal prisoners that were released from federal prison between calendar years 2002-2006, 50% of those who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison.

They often want to start over, but don’t know how to achieve that. They need somewhere to live, to work. They need counseling, but have limited resources. Some prisoners are released with only the clothes on their back, $10 to $200 and a bus ticket to the state line. Life on the outside can be a huge challenge — so hard that many prisoners fail at it and end up back behind bars before long.

A resolution to provide Kratom to aid in the opioid CrisisKratom, while not being as dangerous as opioid, is still detrimental to health Kratom abuse appears to be on the rise in the United States, as the Journal of Addictive Diseases reports on increased poison control center calls. In America, kratom is often marketed as a nutritional or dietary supplement. Negative reactions to the toxicity of the drug prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban its import in 2014. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) lists kratom as a “drug of concern” in the United States. Although the drug is not currently under federal control, it is still considered a possibly dangerous drug of abuse with the potential for dependence and addiction with prolonged and regular use. Side effects of Kratom include: Increased risk-taking behaviors.

Continued use of the drug in full awareness of problems its use may create Decreased production at work or school Social withdrawal and increased secrecy Lack of interest in social, recreational, or other activities that used to be important Inability to stop using the drug despite multiple attempts to do soLack of control over amount taken or duration of abuse Drug tolerance (needing to take more of the drug to feel its effects), drug dependence, and withdrawal symptoms Mood swings and a potential personality shift Changes in sleeping and eating habits, and a possible significant loss of weight Because of these effects while Kratom might not be as detrimental as Opioids, providing addicts another drug to get addicted to will be like using a knife to plug a bullet hole it will only add to the damage Kratom is an opioid As the scientific data and adverse event reports have clearly revealed, compounds in kratom make it so it isn’t just a plant – it’s an opioid. And it’s an opioid that’s associated with novel risks because of the variability in how it’s being formulated, sold and used recreationally and by those who are seeking to self-medicate for pain or who use kratom to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms.

Furthermore, there are safe and effective, FDA-approved medical therapies available for the treatment of opioid addiction. Combined with psychosocial support, these treatments are effective. Importantly, there are three drugs (buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) approved by the FDA for the treatment of opioid addiction, and the agency is committed to promoting more widespread innovation and access to these treatments to help those suffering from an opioid use disorder transition to lives of sobriety.

Ever wonder if you are unconsciously a criminal in the different side of the world? This article is for you. We have made a list of the strangest criminal laws and what might surprise you is that, you might be one. Respect is a hard-earned word. As travelers, one thing we always bring with us is respect to the nation that we are visiting. It is important that we show camaraderie and politeness to a territory we are unfamiliar with. But more than respect, we should be educated on what to do and not to do. Being ignorant is not an excuse to the crime.

In Philippines, there is a law about unjust vexation. To put it simply, annoying someone can be a crime. Yes, you read that right. Do you have an obnoxious neighbor you want to get rid of? Let them come to the Philippines and let the jurisdiction fine them for being too loud. We’re not even kidding. Annoying someone can be considered as a form of light coercion and are fined from 5 Philippine pesos to 2000 Philippine pesos.

Chewing a gum is a NO. Singapore is considered as one of the cleanest countries in the world and there’s a reason why. They take cleanliness seriously. You would not even pass the immigration if you have a wrapped gum in your bag. Also, if you do really happen to chew a gum in a public place, you are considered an offender to Singapore and would end up in a cane beating. Unless, you have a certification that you need to chew gum for medical purposes.

No to flip-flops! There is a country-wide ban on noisy footwears in Capri, Italy. Not only on flip-flops but also those loud squeaky shoes when you are walking.

Too much potatoes are a crime! You cannot hoard potatoes even if it’s for personal consumption in Western Australia. The rule is: you can only have 50 kilograms maximum of potatoes. It is part of their rules in limiting imports. There are people specifically intended to inspect your car if you have bought too much potatoes.

Noise pollution is a serious case in this fast-paced world. Switzerland knows this and takes it seriously. There is a law requiring everybody not to flush the toilet after 10 pm as it is considered an offense.

Please don’t feed the pigeons. One of the must-do of every tourist is to be able to go to one of the famous hot spots of San Francisco, California. One of them is the city itself which catered to many pigeons. But they have a strict rule: don’t feed the pigeons! Reason: there’s too much dirt [poop] to clean.

There is something in Tuszyn, Poland that’s making some of the Disney fans growl of frustration. Well, Winnie the Pooh and other beloved characters are considered inappropriate and hermaphrodite in Poland. They are advised to leave these inappropriate characters at home. The reason of the government is that Winnie the Pooh does not wear pants and has a non-gender specific genitalia. Weird, right?

Criminal Law governs the society we live in by deeming what citizens living within its jurisdiction can and cannot lawfully do. Criminal Laws consists of statutes and common laws put in place by ruling governments or can based on previous case law. The laws are in place to help societies function in a fair and peaceful way and should be applied equally and if there should be a violation of a law there may be a penalty as defined by legal statutes based on the seriousness of the offence. A great deal of laws that have been created have a common feature which is that of an action performed by a person would be strongly disapproved of by society. Any person who has breach of a law will be brought before a judge to answer the allegation.

Outline the relevant articles of the constitution that protect citizens in society against crime.

The Bunreacht na hÉireann also known as the Irish Constitution was created after the British occupation of Ireland. The Constitution put in place the framework of how the country and its organs should be organised governed and the also stated the rights of citizens living in the state. It was ratified in 1937.

Article 38 of the Irish Constitution refers to the Trial of Offences. For example, no citizen of the state can be tried for a charge if it’s not written into law. The same article also makes an allowance for minor offences to tried in the district court where the penalties are less severe than in any other higher court. Article 38.1 also provides the state the option to create special courts in which the standard court model may not be the best setting for justice to be administered, i.e. the special criminal court sits with 3 judges and no jury. They may deal with subversives and gang members, who may have the means available to them to tamper with a case in a normal court setting.

The fundamental rights of citizens are covered in Article 40 of the constitution. In the eyes of the law all citizens should be treated equally without pre-judgement. However due regard will be given those based on capacity, physical and moral and social function.

In relation to victims of crime, the constitution make a guarantee to respect all citizens and will defend and vindicate the personal rights of all citizens.

A tort is a civil wrong doing from one person/group to another person/group of people where damage, injury, loss, distress or harm is said to have taken place and the circumstances have led to Court where the plaintiff is looking damages/compensation to be paid.

The Merriam-Webster defines a crime as “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government” (www.merriam-webster.com, 2019) Crimes are acts by a person or persons which violate statutes and common laws of the land and can be punishable by various means including, imprisonment, fines and community service.

As an example of tort law could be the following, ‘a cleaner mops the entrance to supermarket and does not place any signage to warn customers. A customer then walks in and slips on the wet floor breaking their wrist’. The cleaner has been negligent in their actions by not providing the signage and the company who owns the store could be now to taken to Court for compensation.

An example of criminal law is if two people were having an argument and one of the parties involved strikes the other in the face without a lawful reason. This is an assault contrary to Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 (www.irishstatuebook.ie, 1997) The injured party in this case could also take civil case against the suspected offender.

Tort Law is usually of civil liability and Criminal Law of criminal liability and there can be crossover between both.

Explain the structure of the criminal justice system including the hierarchy, jurisdiction and functions of the Court and also the role of other functions of other institutions within the criminal justice system.

The function of the criminal justice system is to hold someone to account should they commit a wrong that violates common and statute laws. Should that be the case the person may be prosecuted within the Irish Court system.

Before 1922 the Irish Court system was based on the British model, but in 1922, provisions were made in the constitution for the Republic of Ireland to legally create their own Court system as per The Courts of Justice Act 1924 (www.irishstatutebook.ie, 1924). The Court system that we used today in the state is based The Court (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 pursuant to Article 43 of the Irish constitution. (www.irishstatutebook.ie, 1961) (www.gov.ie, 2018)

The structure of the Irish Court system consists of District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court. Each one serves a different purpose in relation to location, seriousness of offence and type of offences.

The District Court is usually local to a town/city within Ireland. This Court will mainly deal with summary offences and can deal with some indictable offences based on the DPP’s directions.

When it comes the District Court, Ireland is split in to 23 districts. There are usually one or more sitting judges attached to the district. The District Court is made up fifty-four judges and a President. Cases are generally heard in Court houses, but they can also be heard in other public buildings, i.e. hotels, community centres…

People who have been charged/summoned before this Court will attend in either the location in which they were arrested, they location in which the offence took place or the locality of where the person lives or carries out their daily business.

The Circuit Court is organised geographically, and it split into 8 Circuits. The Circuit Court has thirty-three judges and a President. The President of the District Court is also a judge of the Circuit Court. This Court will deal with indictable offences and is made up of a judge and jury. This Court provides a function in 4 main fields, family law, civil law, criminal law and jury service. The sittings of the Circuit Court vary depending on the location, Dublin and Cork will have recurring sittings throughout the legal season, but other Circuits will differ and may sit one a week, twice a month to once a month.

The High Court has full jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters within the state. It wears many hats. The High Court sits in Dublin but also will hear cases in several provincial location throughout the year. These include personal injury cases, fatal injury cases and civil and family appeals that have come from the Circuit Court.

In Dublin, when the High Court is dealing with civil matters it is not restricted anyway and can award settlements of any amount that the judge feels are necessary according to law.

In relation to appeals the High Court has the power to deal with civil matters. It also will hear cases from a person who has been granted bail from the District Court but wishes to have the conditions of the bail varied. A person who has been charged with the offence of murder can only apply to the High Court for bail. When the High Court hears matters of a criminal nature it will be referred to as the Central Criminal Court.

The Supreme Court is the final stop for appeals in Ireland. The Supreme Court is often used to clear up questions of the validity of a law regarding the Irish Constitution. The Circuit Court may refer a point of law that has been brought into question for a ruling to assist with a case.

The Supreme Court is made of a Chief Justice and 7 judges. One of these judges will be the President of the High Court.

There are other institutions within the Irish Criminal Justice system which enable it to operate and deal with people who should become involved with it in any way.

One of these institutions is the national police service of Ireland, also known as the An Garda Síochána. The main functions of the Gardaí are as set out in Section 7 of the Garda Síochána Act, 2005 as amended. These range from the preservation of life, the protection of property, detecting and preventing crime, to protecting the security of the state and keeping communities safe.

The Gardaí will operate within the realm of enforcing criminal laws to ensure that society can function in a safe and transparent way. They are responsible for seeking and bringing alleged suspect before the courts, gathering evidence and serving as witnesses in prosecutions. The Gardaí also now serve a heavy role in support victims of crime in according with an EU Directive issued in 2016 and the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017

There is also the Irish Prison Service whom are responsible for securing and rehabilitating offenders. The Irish Prison Service is organised by a director general and supported by 7 directors.

The Irish Prison Service reports to the Department of Justice and Equality. There are 14 prison systems in Ireland. Some systems are closed, some are semi open, and some are remand centres. Males can be sent to any of the 14 prisons and females can be sent to 2 of them, either the Dochas Centre or Limerick Prison.

There is also a young person’s detention centre named Oberstown, this is in North County Dublin. Oberstown runs its institution around 5 pillars: care, education, health, offending behaviour and preparation for leaving. (www.oberstown.com, 2019) This framework is there to help empower the young people, analyse and reflect on their behaviour and when they are allowed to be released into society, that they can maintain a life within civil norms.

The Probation Service is also an important part of the Irish Criminal Justice System. The service usually gets involved around between the trail and sanction part of the process. The Probation Service may be asked by the judge to prepare a pre-assessment document in relation to the alleged offender, so he/she knows what options are available to him should it warrant a penalty. One part of their role is supervising, and monitoring offenders should they get a community-based sanction, they may also be required to report back to the court to ensure the offender is committing to his obligations.

The probation team will also play an important role in the transition of an offender being released from prison back into the community. Sometimes some offenders may be monitored. However, their focus is primarily about rehabilitating the offender, assisting them to make better choices, and helping them turn away from a life of crime and integrating into society as a law-abiding citizen.

An abortion is where a pregnancy is terminated before the foetus has been fully developed in the womb. The act is a physical one and the termination can be completed using medical or surgical means.

Up until 2018 in Ireland, abortion was illegal except in very limited cases. The 8th Amendment which was inserted into the Irish Constitution in 1983 stated that : “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

The passage protects the rights of the unborn, but some people believed that the rights of the woman carrying the foetus weren’t being protected. For example, if a woman wasn’t able to support a child, the child didn’t have a chance of surviving outside the womb, the woman was pregnant as a result of a sexual assault.

The 1992, the 13th Amendment stated the even though protection of life is vital, it would not restrict the freedom to travel in and out of the state. This amendment came off the back of the X Case in 1992 in which a pregnant teenager was believed to be a high risk and suicidal due to becoming pregnant after being raped. This amendment now allowed the teenager to travel to another nation, which having an abortion may be legal.

In May 2018, Ireland held a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment and for a new wording to be inserted for the legalisation of abortions in Ireland. This was based on vindicating the rights of pregnant women. The votes were in favour of repealing the 8th amendment from 66% voting in favour and 34% of votes voting againsе. This new legislation, Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. was signed into law on the 20th December 2018.

Euthanasia is an intentionally ending of a life to relief the suffering of that person. For many people the belief on whether is right or wrong all comes down to their personal ethics.

Voluntary Euthanasia is where a person is aided by a 3rd party to end their life in a painless way. In countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands this is a legal practice if a person chose to end their life. In Ireland this would be considered illegal.

Assisted Suicide is when someone wishes to take their own life and they have been deliberately guided or encouraged by another person to take end their life. This would be an offence contrary to Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993 and a person assisting someone with suicide could be punished with a term of imprisonment of up to 14 years

Palliative Sedation is the act of a physician relieving pain for a terminal patient who is at the end of life, which generally results in death. For example, if a patient is undergoing end of life care for motor neurons disease, they doctor may provide a high dose of morphine, which will relieve any pain that patient is suffering mentally and/or physically however this could compromise the breathing ability of the patient which will result in them passing away.

Non-Voluntary Euthanasia is when a suffering person is not a position to make their consent regarding the termination of their life. This could be due to the person being too young, in a coma, suffering from severe brain damage etc…Usually the decision is based on previous expressed wishes if that conversation was ever had occurred pre-becoming terminal.

Infanticide is the intentionally killing of an infant. According to the Infanticide Act 1949, an infant is defined as a child under 12 months of age.

The 1949 law seems to be in relation to when the offence is committed by a woman. For example, Section 1 (1) states “On the preliminary investigation by the District Court of a charge against a woman for the murder of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, the Justice may, if he thinks proper, alter the charge to one of infanticide and send her forward for trial on that charge.” (www.irishstatute.com, 1949). We can assume this was due to when the law was created in 1949, that the women would generally be the homemakers and the ones who spends most time with the children hence they would be more susceptible to committing this offence.

If a person is a found guilty of Infanticide due to a wilful act or an act of omission, they could be guilty of the offence which amounts to the same as Murder.

Section 22 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 (www.irishstatute.com, 2006) is an amendment to the 1949 act, which updates the definition from the original act of a ‘mental disorder’ and allows a conviction of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Analyse the two types of homicide. What are the elements of and categories of murder and manslaughter? Discuss their definitions from statute law and from case law.

Section 4 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1964, titled ‘Malice’ is the legal statute in Ireland regarding the offence of Murder. The wording in legislation is as follows “Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.”.

In order to prove the offence of murder, the evidence should prove that the killing of a person was unlawful, meaning that there is not a good defence available that could help rebut the charge. The Actus Reus and Mens Rea of the offence must also be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Actus Reus in murder, would be the action that caused the death of a person. i.e. the suspected offender pulled the trigger of a gun that shot a person who subsequently died because of the offender’s action. The Mens Rea is about proving the intent of the suspected offender. In the wording of the legislation it is vital to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender ‘intended to kill or cause serious injury’. The Mens Rea could be proved in several ways, in relation to someone being shot, the police would look for any motives, they would interview the offender and witnesses, they would establish if any preparations have been made, anything at all that could assist with proving the person intending on killing another.

Hey Rich People, do you have money that can buy something that is not for sale? and something you shouldn’t try to buy.

And Hi Powerful, do you have that much power that can place yourselves above the law?

The whole scenario can be easily understood in this way we are driving a car and with us, there are the rich and powerful also driving on the same road with their cars, both driving rashly without a license (which means both are breaking rules). Now comes the police trying to catch us but they succeeded in catching us and the rich and powerful just take off in front of our eyes and we just keep staring at them and can’t do anything. We pay the fine get our punishments and then the police just go off.

We know that the law is enforceable, and everyone is treated the same under the law. But some judgment that was made in our society put all of us into doubt, it raises questions against judges and the court’s neutrality when it comes to cases that deal with rich and famous people. The law that makes its decisions and judgment deals with all the cases without being biased and deliver justice for every case that is laid in front of it. But several times it is misjudged and it happens in cases where the wealthy and famous are involved, it seems that rich people enjoy some kind of advantages and get preferences when it comes to a list of cases. Probably, they get a hand or support when they find themselves in a critical situation under any case against themselves which can spoil or can affect their lives.

28% of the UK public surveyed on Inclusive Growth think that in today’s the today rich has got most power in the society. Specifically, the wealthiest have a greater ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events than any other actors, including the government.

When asked about the Future, the result is even more surprising, 34% by 2030 interpreting this survey concluded that the very rich will have the most influence in the public eye. This is more than the 28% of individuals who figured that the legislature will in any case have the most power. Unmistakably, open observations recommend we are well in transit to plutocracy, and here is the place debasement becomes possibly the most important factor.

Why rich peoples enjoy advantages when it comes to judgment? What is the difference between the rich and us that creates discrimination while judging under the same law?

The difference is in the quantity of money, resources, and surplus of different things that they have. Well, it is true that money buys almost everything, but can money buy things that are not for sale? The rich that have money influence other minds and can create such an environment that everyone wants to breathe and live, as everyone is not rich, they try to achieve that so when there is any opportunity that comes in the range of any individual, they try to get it. As to obtain anything we have to provide some input so as to get some output whether the input is in any form doesn’t matter. Rich peoples use this to get an advantage they offer or place various options and opportunities in front of the other person, the person can be a policeman, an officer, a whole department, or even a judge so that they can make money or get something that they want easily with just shake hands with the rich and wealthy, Enjoy the life!!, who cares what the innocents and suffered ones are feeling.

Apart from all, the court has to make judgments that were free from biasing but no, there are many cases that were proved to be wrong. Now let’s talk about some cases related to this fact that serve as an example.

Salman Khan is a well-known actor in the Bollywood industry with eminent cases. Firstly, he killed a blackbuck in 1998, the final judgment got passed in 2018 sentenced to five years of imprisonment, and immediately got bail. Secondly, the hit-and-run case. His car Toyota Land Cruiser breaks into a bakery shop, killing one person and injuring four people. The punishment for killing a person in India is a minimum of 10 years if the murderer has a clean criminal background and 25 years if killed with a firearm So, what just happened with the Salman Khan case? If I killed someone, I find myself inside the bars got beaten up by police and they send me to jail for 10 years. In the case of Salman Khan, there were witnesses who confirmed that they saw Salman Khan driving his car but even with this proof he is freely moving now. The courts find Salman Khan guilty of all charges against him but sentenced him to only five years of imprisonment, got 48 hours of interim relief, and then on the evening of the judgment being passed he got bail and now living a luxurious life.

Another example is Kyle Ticlo, son of Aldona Ticlo, MLA in Goa. Speeding his BWM mows down two sisters in Belagavi, one killed and another heavily injured. He got arrested by the cops which is just a formality to just bring down society’s heat for him and then just after one day got bail and now living a luxurious life even with eyewitnesses. They cheated the judicial system and hence they cheated justice and there has to be something to avoid occurring such things. Why he was released, he has to be in jail for 10 years as per written in our laws, accidentally killing a person leads to the imprisonment of 10 years but is it also written that this law is enforceable to everyone except the Rich and Powerful like Kyle Ticlo, Aldona Ticlo, etc?

There are many cases where middle-class people commit any crime and get their respective punishments and that is absolutely right but what happens to our constitution, and our laws when it comes to the rich and powerful people, are they above the law or the laws are not applicable to them?

The above two are not just only examples there are many other examples where the rich party dominates but the reason, maybe; they get off easily is that they have money to erase evidence, they have money to control the process of investigation that is going on, they influence the other party. There is not always the involvement of a government hand to help the rich hide it from everyone, but the lawyers also play a major role in freeing the guilty party. The rich people can easily afford top lawyers in their region the lawyers know which party is guilty and which is not. The rich people just flow a stream of money into lawyers’ pockets and then lawyers turn to their side even when they are guilty. Lawyers have complete knowledge and information about the justice system, and they know the loopholes of the procedure or say the weak points of the process that can be easily interfered with. Just interfering with the procedure with their minds they got access to everything and then they interpret everything differently and present it differently in front of the courts presenting fake evidence and editing the reports they smartly use the law to defend themselves and hence they freed the guilty people just for the greed of money. Maybe they get a feeling of nostalgia.

It is not only in India where the rich, powerful, and corrupt get special treatment from the government or from the courts and the departments that it was concerned but it was the case almost with every country on this earth. Taking the example of Snoop Dogg, a famous rapper, and music artist. In 1993, Snoop Dogg heard a disturbance outside his apartment. His friend Sean Abrams was arguing with the group of rappers. Snoop Dogg and his bodyguard McKinley Lee went outside his apartment and the argument ended with the dead body of one of the gang members Philip Woldemariam, McKinley and Snoop Dogg both are responsible for firing the shot, Snoop Dogg and his friend were charged with first- and second-degree murder. McKinley was shot from behind and hence means that McKinley is running from them, That indicates Snoop Dogg is involved in the murder, but he was defended and was acquitted after years of court battles. Apart from what is killed McKinley or being involved but he charged with first and second-degree murder, what about this?

Apart from celebrities let’s talk about a famous Politician, Laura Bush who was First Lady of the United States of America during the presidency of her husband George W. Bush from 1995 to 2000. In November of 1963, Laura killed one of her classmates in an accidental death through a car. She proceeded to run a stop sign and in doing that she run through a 17 years old boy, Michael Douglas died at the spot of his injuries. Literally, no charges were filed against her no legal actions were taken against her.

She is the daughter of a wealthy property developer, his father had just flowed the stream of money, asked to leave his daughter, and somehow succeeds with his power of money and she never had to go through any kind of punishment for killing Douglas. Putting a normal citizen in place of Laura Bush, there is no possible way out of this mess without money. Committing to such level of actions he/she will definitely be put behind bars for 8 -12 years with lots of restrictions, and fines additional.

In 2013, a Sentencing Project report noted that “The United States in effect operates two distinct criminal justice system: one for wealthy people and another for poor people and minority.” While the law is hypothetically race and class unbiased , practically speaking access to assets makes incredible variations in how equity is administered in the U.S. Poor people group and poverty stricken litigants are hindered at each phase of the criminal equity process, including: law authorization strategies for example, “stop and search” are utilized intensely in low salary networks of shading, despite the fact that most by far of people ceased by police have carried out no wrong doing; cash safeguard as a state of pretrial discharge results in the detainment of destitute individuals, restricting access to advice and causing family hardship; penniless respondents need to depend on court delegated lawyers, a large number of whom are unpracticed and additionally keep up high caseloads; given the constrained accessibility of freely supported treatment programs, access to such administrations as an option in contrast to imprisonment is significantly more accessible to litigants with family assets to pay charges.

Now take the example of a recent incident in West Bengal, India, the chit fund scam. CBI requested to ask questions to Rajeev Kumar, Chief of Kolkata Police because he was found to be involved in disappearing the 800 crores of public money. Rajiv Kumar is very special to Mamata Banerjee, C.M. of West Bengal, and to her party, Trinamool Congress even though he was suspected of clearing the evidence Mamata Banerjee started a Dharna to defend the officer and asked the supreme court to restrict the CBI interference in this chit fund case. That’s how the rich is being saved by the powerful even though they ate 800 crore rupees of public and now is being far away from the hands of the Central Bureau of Investigation. This time the rich and powerful gets help directly from the government itself on such a large scale. Rich becomes powerful and powerful becomes rich.

The Rich peoples have involvement in the Government and the involvement is increasing day by day. Richer helps the government in various ways, majority of funds for the political parties came through the richer people that and in return for all that support they want many advantages over others. They want the government to protect their back and help them and do whatever they want freely in society.

It can be noticed in all the cases that we have seen and heard in past years there are very rare cases in which it can be concluded that the judgment is not biased, and the decision is being not in favor of the rich people. In the court, the rich seem to have a dominant party and the arguments that were made by the rich get more preference over the other party and are listened to very carefully and thought to be true despite having a weak plot of argument to prove another party wrong.

Well-off individuals are abusing the framework, yet rather can exploit the rights stood to everyone under our arrangement of government to a degree that isn’t accessible to destitute individuals. This happens in the capacity to post safeguard, procure competent protection counsel, exhibit an agreement for option condemning, and different zones. As opposed to scrutinizing their capacity to do as such, we ought to rather hold this up as the standard of equity for all individuals, not only those with methods.

The Rich and Powerful held a special place in eyes of the society and a special place where our system placed them. They deserve a special place but not a place where the hands of laws cannot reach. Our judicial system is very well designed and also implemented properly but just because of few corrupt people sitting inside the government deal with the rich and powerful for some benefit, making us all feel disappointed by our judicial system. The corrupt and guilty will always try to escape from the mess they created and fear of being caught makes them do so it is completely natural like a man sinking in the water doing whatever he can do, moving his arms and legs randomly in any direction fearing to get drowned. In the real-world rich and powerful instead of using arms and legs uses their money and power, and that is absolutely natural for anyone in such a situation to think of going corrupt but is our system’s fault that they think about doing such think. Our judicial system has to think about some new, updated, and secured processes to avoid such processes to happen to stop the rich and powerful. The government has to do something about this and find out how rich and powerful get rid of the law, and those who are enjoying their lives and committed serious crimes should now go to jail as also the others who are helping them from outside and inside of the government. There has to be a law that can keep an eye on the interference of the rich and powerful in government so they cannot get benefits and cheat justice. Those who are involved in messing up with our system should be punished with a huge fine and put behind the bars according to the level of crime they committed. It’s our responsibility to take action against such behavior of the rich and powerful and raise our voices against the exploitation of our judicial system.

References

1. (2018, October 15). US Daily Review | The Best in News and Thoughtful Commentary. Do Rich People Get Off Easier When They Break the Law? | US Daily Review. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from http://usdailyreview.com/do-rich-people-get-off-easier-when-they-break-the-law/
2. Walse, S. (2013, February 14). The Guardian. America’s bail system: one law for the rich, another for poor | Sadhbh Walshe | Opinion | The Guardian. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from http://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/14/america-bail-system-law-rich-poor
3. Gupta, A., & Frenchman, E. (2017, February 02). QUARTZ. The US bail system punishes the poor and rewards the rich — Quartz. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from http://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/900777/the-us-bail-system-punishes-the-poor-and-rewards-the-rich/amp/
4. (2014, June 03). CSG Justice Center | Collaborative Approaches to Public Safety. The Sentencing Project Annual Report 2013. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from http://csgjusticecenter.org/corrections/publications/the-sentencing-project-annual-report-2013
5. (2015, January 01). GOV.UK. Inclusive growth: Topic guide – GOV.UK. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from http://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs/inclusive-growth-topic-guide

A fundamental prerequisite for conviction in criminal law is blameworthiness, meaning that a defendant must have sufficient capacity to be held criminally responsible for their actions. While men’s rea accredits blameworthiness to the actus reus, there can occasionally be barriers to criminal responsibility that may make a defendant less culpable for their actions, an example being, intoxication. In this sense, blameworthiness calls into question the principle of fair labeling, which should ‘represent fairly the nature and magnitude of the law-breaking’, in that argument, a person should not carry the stigma of being labeled a ‘criminal’ if they cannot carry culpability and are therefore less deserving of punishment. Ultimately, this begs the question of the extent to which blameworthiness should affect punishment.

Men’s rea, meaning ‘guilty mind’, refers to ‘the element of a criminal offense that relates to the defendant’s mental state’. A defendant needs to satisfy both the actus reus (‘guilty act’) and the men’s rea of an offense to be convicted of a said offense and punished accordingly. For instance, to criminalize a person within the common law offense of theft, it is not enough for the defendant to have ‘appropriate[d] property belonging to another’, it must also be proven that they satisfied the men’s rea of theft which is ‘dishonest[y]’ and ‘the intention of permanently depriving the other of [the property].’ In this sense, it can be argued that the role of mens rea is pivotal in ensuring that punishment is only served to blameworthy individuals. Despite this, a defendant’s state of mind cannot be solely relied upon when determining blameworthiness as they may have fulfilled the mens rea of an offence but in terms of morality, we may be less likely to consider them blameworthy, an example being, a mercy killing. However, for the Privy Council in Yip Chiu-Cheung v Queen , in which a police officer was charged with conspiracy to traffic dangerous drugs as part of an undercover operation aiming to identify both the suppliers and recipients of the drugs, the defendant still expressed intention to commit that offence and thus, his motive was irrelevant. While this judgement highlights the courts’ stringent approach to the relationship between mens rea and blameworthiness, it fails to acknowledge the morality of the defendant’s behavior, therefore opposing the principle of fair-labelling.

Mens rea can be assessed both objectively, meaning that a defendant’s conduct is judged by an external standard of reasonableness, or subjectively, in which a mens rea requirement looks internally into the mind of the defendant, for instance intention or recklessness. The subjective mens rea approach supports the ‘belief principle’, in that a defendant’s liability should not be based on facts that were unknown to them or what a ‘reasonable individual’ would have done, but instead on what a defendant believed they were doing. This was reaffirmed in R v G , in which two young boys were charged with arson after setting fire to a newspaper which subsequently spread to a shop, resulting in £1 million worth of damage, despite not foreseeing this consequence. R v G drew attention to a subjective test, focussing on ‘the circumstances known to [the defendant]’, and shifted away from the objective test established in R v Caldwell , in which emphasis was placed on foreseeability from a reasonable person’s perspective as opposed to the particular defendant. The inequitable nature of this objective test is reflected in Elliot v C , concerning an act of arson by a 14-year-old girl with learning difficulties which, when Caldwell was applied, resulted in conviction. This outcome is exceptionally unjust due to the defendant’s incapability of foreseeing or understanding the potential risk, as a result of factors that a ‘reasonable person’ may not experience. Accordingly, it can be contended that blameworthiness can only be assessed fully and effectively by using the subjective approach, taking into account all factors which may affect the defendant’s actions and consequently, the level of culpability we attach to them.

An example of these defendant-specific factors that need to be taken into account is intoxication. In many instances, the intoxication has weakened the defendant’s restraints which would usually govern their conduct, potentially causing them to be more risk-taking. Both forms of intoxication; voluntary and involuntary, require a lack of mens rea formed by the defendant, that is that they did not foresee a consequence that would have been foreseen but for the consumption of an alcoholic substance or drug. In this sense, the defendant’s state of intoxication may act as an aggravating factor, made clear by the court’s approach to voluntary intoxication, or ‘may mitigate the gravity of the offense’ in relation to involuntary intoxication. Here, a question can be raised as to the extent of which intoxication should act as a mitigating factor towards the blameworthiness attached to an offence.

Involuntary intoxication primarily involves intoxication which is induced by a third party, an example being, DPP v O’Connor, in which the defendant and five others were convicted of drink driving offences but were not disqualified from driving altogether, due to their drinks being laced with an alcoholic substance unbeknown to them. As highlighted by this case, while involuntary intoxication may mitigate the punishment served to a defendant, it is not wholly a defence in itself. Despite this, ‘the law takes a more liberal view’ towards involuntary intoxication as opposed to self-induced as, intrinsically, an individual cannot be said to be responsible for their state of inebriation. With this in mind, it is arguable that involuntary intoxication should be a defence, and therefore should not be punished as, if an individual cannot be blamed for their state of intoxication then how can they be blameworthy for consequences that occur after that? Notwithstanding, the courts have been presented with circumstances which sought to blur the line between what constitutes involuntary and voluntary intoxication. For instance, in the case of R v Coley it was held that, although medically prescribed drugs would constitute involuntary intoxication, the defendant’s knowledge of the effects of mixing said medication with alcohol would be considered self-induced. A further, perhaps more feeble, example can be seen in R v Allen in which it was for the court to determine whether a defendant’s voluntary consumption, but underestimation of the strength of alcohol, constituted involuntary intoxication. Rightfully, it was held to be voluntary intoxication as the defendant was aware of their consumption of alcohol and thus, could be held responsible for their inebriated state, whether the extent of which was expected or not. Both these cases highlight the level of blameworthiness – even mere knowledge of an outcome – that is attributable to voluntary intoxication as opposed to involuntary. Ultimately, this reinforces the argument that involuntary intoxication should not constitute blameworthy conduct and therefore, should not be punished by the law.

Voluntary intoxication, where a defendant is aware of their consumption of an alcoholic substance or drug, is a more complex issue, particularly with regards to its relationship with blameworthiness. Reason being, if an individual can be held responsible for their state of intoxication then, arguably, they can carry blameworthiness for any criminal activity that ensues. The courts reflect this argument in taking a stricter approach to voluntary intoxication and splitting offences up into those with ‘specific intent’ and those which require ‘basic intent’. This distinction, albeit not adequately explained by the courts, is of ‘profound importance’ as it separates offences of which the mens rea is primarily that of recklessness or negligence (basic intent) and those of intention or knowledge in which the ‘mens rea goes beyond the immediate actus reuse (specific intent). DPP v Majewski , in which the defendant was convicted of three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sought to rely on his state of intoxication as a defence, provides the leading interpretation of the two categories. The House of Lords held that a defendant’s inebriated state provided no defence against crimes of ‘basic intent’ as the fact that the defendant got themselves into said state, potentially risking loss of awareness, solely constitutes the mens rea of recklessness required. Nonetheless, the courts make a presumption here that an individual who gets voluntarily intoxicated is ‘aware that the intoxication will or might cause misbehaviour. ‘ In terms of ‘specific intent’, it was held that if the prosecution proved that the defendant had the required intent for the offence in question, the defendant would be found guilty, articulating that ‘a drunken intent is still an intent . Although Majewski reaffirmed the outlook taken in DPP v Beard , the judgement was arguably problematic as the distinction was unclear, leading to inconsistencies in application. An example being R v Heard involving an act of sexual assault while voluntarily intoxicated, which suggested that public policy considerations may also contribute to deciding whether an offence is of ‘basic’ or ‘specific’ intent. It can be argued that this public policy point is reflected throughout voluntary intoxication, in that ‘the law should not protect misbehaving intoxicated people’.

This argument is further insinuated in Majewski by Lord Salmon: ‘If there were to be no penal sanction for any injury unlawfully inflicted under the complete mastery of drink or drugs, voluntarily taken, the social consequence could be appalling.’ Lord Salmon presents a compelling argument, in that it seems wholly unjust to allow a law-breaking individual to cause harm and remain unpunished as a result of voluntarily being under the influence of a substance which may distort their sense of awareness. However, there are some difficulties in supporting Lord Salmon’s view, as it is arguable that risk-awareness of the effects of intoxicating substances (a central concept for the courts) ‘ought to be an issue of fact, not law.’ Despite this, further to the social standpoint, the allowance of voluntary intoxication to mitigate blameworthiness may even encourage individuals to be more ‘reckless’ in their consumption of alcohol or drugs by providing a safety net against criminal responsibility, potentially undermining criminal law. In this sense, it is arguably fair to consider voluntary intoxication blameworthy conduct which should be punished. Fundamentally, this suggests that societal expectations should have influence on the way in and extent to which we label individuals as blameworthy.

Nevertheless, there is an argument that the law should only punish blameworthy conduct as it may reassure individuals that they are only criminally liable, and therefore subject to punishment by the state, if they act recklessly or intentionally and so on. This argument supports the rule of law and principle of legality, in that individuals in society need to be aware of what conduct is considered to be law-breaking. However, the concept of blameworthiness goes far beyond what is set in stone as ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’, as morality is instrumental in societal views on what is right or wrong and what should be punished.

With this in mind, it is difficult to purely label intoxication as ‘blameworthy’ but equally, it should not be considered a barrier to culpability or an evader of punishment altogether. While the law rightfully does not allow individuals to diminish full responsibility for their actions as a result of intoxication, is it just to group both voluntary and involuntary intoxication under the same label of ‘criminal’? This raises the fundamental, yet elusive question of ‘why does fair labelling matter so much?’ One would be inclined to view self-induced intoxication as more blameworthy than involuntary intoxication, which is why deciding whether the criminal law should only punish blameworthy conduct is not simple. Ultimately, while it is arguable that certain factors may limit the amount of responsibility that a defendant can carry, the level of blameworthiness we attach to certain conduct should not influence the punishment served by criminal law.

Signed into action under the Bill Clinton Administration, the “Three Strikes Amendment” is part of an early initiative to reduce crime and the number of repetitive criminals in rural and urban areas during the early years of the 1990s. As a result, the ratification directly influenced the increase of 60 capital punishment offenses, the construction of additional prisons, the employment of 100,000 national police, and the placement of further prevention of crime efforts. (Clinton.61.9.95).

In an implementation, “The Three Strikes law” heightened the number of prison sentences of individuals indicted as a result of felonies and those who were or have been convicted of a prior violent or serious felony by a great deal. The law also limited the capability of these offenders to acquire a punishment other than a minimum prison sentence; Violent and serious felonies are specifically listed in subjective state law which encompasses, but is not limited to violent offenses including incidents of homicide, breaking in and entering a home with the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, and sexual offenses; Crimes considered as serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but they also contain other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with the intent to carry out a robbery or rape. (Clinton.61.9.95).

“The Three Strikes and You’re Out Law” negatively affected minority communities from the 1990’s-2005. The purpose was to get tough on repeat or habitual offenders, which prompted lengthy prison sentences required on the third felony conviction of an offender, however, the major effect of the law was a substantial increase in the incarceration of minorities.

Of the 50 states composing the United States, California was one of the first states to pass a three-strikes law. Despite the minority representation, the incarceration rate was thirteen times higher than for Caucasians.

In Georgia, 98 percent of offenders serving life sentences under their law were African Americans who were criminalized more often and had an increased chance of stop and frisk. Based upon the foundation of social psychology, Schemas, and Stereotypes recognize that many people in the United States have a stereotype about people of color that involves their aggressiveness and the potential for offenses.

In mock trial research involving college students, students playing jurors were more likely to “find the defendant guilty of a crime if his name was Carlos Ramirez rather than Robert Johnson.” In 2001, African American males accounted for approximately 31 percent of the population in California prisons while they only constituted about 3.5 percent of the general population within the state. Although several public officials say that racial profiling should not exist, unofficially, likely subconsciously, it appeared to be a strong undercurrent that permitted it to occur and flourish in a society that vowed to do the latter. (Kieso.2005). By the end of 2001, 43 percent of those held on death row in the U.S. were African American despite African Americans making up only about 12 percent of the general population. (Kieso.2005) In 2002, African Americans made up more than 80% of those condemned under the legislature of the national narcotic laws and served considerably more time in prison for drug offenses than did their Caucasian counterparts and those accused of the same crime, despite the figures that enumerate more than 2/3 of narcotics users in the U.S. are Caucasian or Hispanic. (NAACP.2002).

According to a 2005 publication, “an estimated 28 percent of African American males will enter a state or federal prison during their entire lifetime, compared to 16 percent of Hispanic males and 4.4 percent of Caucasian males.” In addition to racial profiling, the Three Strikes Law only furthered the penalties against those convicted of charges, the majority drug-related and non-violent in response to under-developed or impoverished Urbanized communities.44 percent of all inmate strikers were convicted of a serious or violent current offense, while 56 percent were convicted of nonserious or nonviolent offenses. (LAO.2005), An opposing view to that of the Clinton Administration upon implementing the legislation into action for ratification within the states.

In contrast, as crime increasingly became a worry among Congressional officials and U.S. Citizens alike due to previous crime rates in correlation with the previous 1980s war on drugs, the Clinton administration recognized the pass of a tougher crime bill with longer sentences, three strikes and you’re out as imperative along which gave the initial impression to prevent crime from occurring at such alarming rates. (Clinton.61.9.95). Aside from Executive reasoning, on a state level in areas such as California, voters approved the Three Strikes Law in 1994 after the murder of Polly Klaas, a 12-year-old by an ex-convict. The killer had been released from prison after serving eight years of a 16-year sentence for a series of armed robberies. Previously, he served six years in prison after he attempted rape, brutally assaulted a woman in the course of a burglary, and tried to kidnap another woman at gunpoint. (Boyarsky.2011). Under the logic of the circumstances, It feels reasonable to assign a Bill that requires a minimum of 25 years to life after the act of two felonies, however, in its intent to reduce felony crimes through habitual offenders, the policies associated with the Three Strikes Bill begins to create unreasonable neglect in certain cases with too harsh of consequences from non-violent acts such as in the case of Lockyer V. Andrade.

On 5 March 2003, In the conviction case of Lockyer V. Leandro Andrade, Andrade was ruled to serve a double consecutive life in prison sentence, without the possibility of parole for fifty years, for stealing $153 worth of videotapes in two separate incidents. (Chemerinsky.31.1.04). After two previous convictions of petty theft where both of which included the theft of video tapes for a sum amount of $153.54.

Under California law, these incidents would generally be regarded as crimes of petty theft misdemeanors punishable by a fine or a jail sentence of six months or less however because Andrade had at least two prior convictions, albeit for the nonviolent crime of burglary, his two arrests for shoplifting were prosecuted as felony petty theft with a prior. While the sentence under the Three Strikes Law is assured to reduce repetition, as Andrade would not be released from prison, such harsh punishment does not constitute reducing crime as the Bill intended. In the span of time, the Three Strikes Bill issued unconstitutional methods of punishment for petty offenses. Offenses may have been reduced with the support of diagnosis and treatment, however, that was often not the case and several minorities under profiling did not have the funds or the want among officials to improve them as “criminals”.

However, perhaps it is to say that minorities were not incarcerated more often or set in longer prison sentences due to racial profiling and criminalization thus it is not the fault of the Clinton Administration and state legislators who passed the law that the effects were negative in response to the Three Strikes Law but rather it is the to their own fault as citizens of the nation who must be held responsible in the courts, and the methods in which that occurs may not have always been the most reasonable. While “accumulative disadvantages” may have influenced the amount of crime in a community the sentencing did not. Although racial discrimination emerges some of the time at some stages of criminal justice processing-such as juvenile justice-there is little evidence that racial disparities result from systemic, overt bias.(Lauritsen & Sampson.1997) Race and ethnic disparities in violent offending and victimization are pronounced and long-standing. African Americans, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, suffer much higher rates of robbery and homicide victimization than Caucasians.

Despite the intent of the Clinton administration and State Legislators, the improvement through the increased incarceration and penalties of repeat offenders, associated with the creation of The Three Strikes Law the law directly negatively affected minority communities through the years the 1990s-2005, due to the policies and faults associated with its creation.

The debate over whether or not Stand Your Ground laws are necessary is a hefty topic. These laws, which give people the ability to defend themselves if threatened, spark lots of controversy over whether or not they are necessary. They have helped out the general people as well as involved big names and politicians in the topic. Some of the stories of such victims also put another view into the world.

Stand Your Ground laws are defined as a law that protects an individual from government prosecution for defending him or herself, instead of first making an attempt to flee and being unable. This law makes the individual who is being attacked be able to defend themselves right away as long as they are threatened instead of having to make an attempt to flee before being able to defend themselves as told by Elkin (2018). These laws have been around since they were first passed in 2005 in the state of Florida. Since then they have spread to 28 states all over the U.S. In many cases, this law has been challenged and questioned almost since it was passed. One of the first major reviews of the law was held back in 2012 and led by a black Florida Republican governor who was in favor of the law, explaining how it was helpful to the people who may get into bad situations by bad people.

The law as told by Jonsson (2012) implies that anyone who is threatened on their own property does not have to first make an attempt to escape before engaging in lethal force. The law is designed to help such individuals to be able to confidently defend themselves against attackers without the fear of criminal prosecution. Gaetz (2018) also explains that instead of these individuals being at the mercy of the attacker, this allows them to defend themselves comfortably using any force necessary and be safe from government prosecution. Elkin (2018) exclaims how in other states one must first make an attempt to flee and only if that attempt is failed or cannot be made can they use lethal force against the attacker. At this time the law is said to be passed in over 10 states mostly in the South.

With any law comes a lot of opposition. A lot of these oppositions occurred while in a court hearing, like the 2012 Zimmerman case, led by the black Florida Republican governor. In this case, George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, killing him. Because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws, Zimmerman was released without any charges. His case was very controversial with many believing the law is flawed. Even though Zimmerman felt threatened enough to discharge his weapon at Martin, many believe the case was not a Stand Your Ground case. Many people want to change this law to make it better to interpret these scenarios coming from Jonsson (2012). With the belief by people that this law was not a Stand Your Ground case, people are also questioning whether this case was an act of racism and targeting or other cases similar. Some believe that this gives these “Defenders” an excuse to shoot unarmed black men as a racist attack on them and targeting.

Elkin (2018) gives another case to look at involving Michael Drejka who fatally shot a man after being knocked to the ground. The Pinellas County sheriff declined to arrest Drejka after the incident exclaiming how it was viable under the state’s Stand Your Ground law. Many critics believe his use of force was unnecessary in that instance. Many critics believe the Stand Your Ground laws promote a legal racial bias. In other words, they believe that this law entitles people to shoot unarmed men of color and use this law as a “get out of jail free” card. This is what many believe which creates another controversy over the law.

Involving gun laws, conceal and carry is a big reason these Stand Your Ground laws occur. When people have their conceal and carry, they have their guns with them, and when they have their guns with them in a state with a Stand Your Ground law, it is believed some to have an increased case of violence. Because of this, some lawmakers feel it is necessary to tighten the restrictions on the concealed permit so that it doesn’t end up in the hands of a bad-minded person, or someone who is unfit to carry. The argument against this is that those who obtain the concealed carry permit are obtaining it legally and after going through a very lengthy process to obtain it, including extensive background checks, training, and even fingerprinting. Emord (2012) exclaims These same lawmakers also make a statement about how it is impossible to tell who the next victim will be of a crime. Because of this, it is also impossible to tell who should need the concealed permit and who shouldn’t be based on that information. With more regulations, it makes it difficult for those individuals to prepare to defend themselves from any attack which could happen at any time.

Stand Your Ground laws said to Gaetz (2018), do not condone an excuse to use unnecessary force against an innocent person suspected of being bad, but protect the citizens. They also protect law enforcement from such prosecutions against them. An example of this would be if an officer is after an individual and he feels threatened. If the individual is taking something out of his pocket and starts to run toward the officer. The officer can then shoot the individual who he suspected was attempting to harm the officer. This is another controversy in itself as this sort of thing happens all the time. It is the same scenario with civilians if they are in a situation where they feel threatened.

Ballinger (2017) points out that the people allowed carrying their weapons concealed would be those who pass through all of the background checks necessary to obtain the license including fingerprinting. Because of this, they are not a threat to society as they are obtaining the permit legally. They would then be able to carry their weapons with them wherever. The criminals on the other hand will not obtain a permit at all and will more than likely carry the weapon instead anyway. This is another reason why those who go through the process to obtain the permit should be trusted enough to not have to regulate it more.

Gaetz (2018) is a U.S. representative for the state of Florida. He explains how the Stand Your Ground Laws are simply common sense. He tells a story about a woman who had fallen victim to a robbery. Even worse things would have happened to her had she not been carrying a concealed weapon on her. After she tripped and fell she regained herself and pulled out her weapon and shot the man and defended herself and saved her life. Gaetz explains how he believes this is a common sense scenario that it was not murder but self-defense because of the Stand Your Ground laws, which he approves of. Gaetz also explains how he believes that the Stand Your Ground laws, “do not promote a Wild West mentality – they prevent it. He also believes these laws protect the people as well as law enforcement alike. Citizens have a right to protect and defend themselves. They should not be forced to flee when under attack. Likewise, law enforcement officers should have the ability to serve and protect citizens without fear of prosecution. Stand Your Ground laws serve our citizens and our law enforcement heroes alike – we owe it to both to preserve these important laws.”

Elkin (2018) tells us, those who believe in this law exclaim how they believe people have a right to defend themselves in any place they are allowed to be. “Supporters of ‘stand your ground’ laws say they give people the right to protect themselves. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defended the law at the National Rifle Association’s 2015 annual meeting in Nashville. ‘In Florida, you can defend yourself anywhere you have a legal right to be,’ he said. ‘You shouldn’t have to choose between being attacked and going to jail.’”

In Emord’s (2012) case, with the handgun regulation, it was declared by the judge that the handgun regulation for the state of Maryland interfered with the second amendment right to bear arms. The judge believes this regulation went against the right to bear arms and exclaims how it is a decision made by those who wish to take the citizen’s rights away to have guns outside the home for self-defense, which could be used to protect themselves in case of an attacker wishing harm upon the individuals. It also is pointed out what the judge believes the term “bear” means, “In an important part of the decision, Judge Legg interpreted the term ‘bear’ in the Second Amendment (‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’). He reasoned that the term ‘bear’ plainly implies a right to possess arms outside the home. Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), he explained that the meaning of the term ‘bear’ is to ‘wear, bear, or carry…upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose…of being aimed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ There is in this meaning no restriction that would limit the exercise of the right to the home.”

Some of the experiences in more detail are told by a few people. Jonsson (2012) revealed the big question that many believe this law is used unfairly, “It’s not clear if Zimmerman’s lawyers will claim a Stand Your Ground defense. Some experts have said it may not apply, because Zimmerman fired his gun after ending up on his back, meaning that he was not in a position to invoke the law. Other legal experts have suggested that the Stand Your Ground law should have applied to Trayvon if anyone because he appears to have stood his ground against an armed stranger confronting him on a dark street.”

Gaetz’s (2018) story of the woman who was attacked but in more detail. A woman who was all on her own one night was grabbed one night by an attacker who threatened her life. She kicked her way out of his hands and doing so broke her ankle slammed her head and fell on the ground, but she didn’t give up and grabbed a revolver and shot the assailant causing her to escape. She is not a murderer because of this and is protected by Florida’s Stand Your Ground Laws.

Emord (2012) has their story prior to that court hearing regarding handgun regulations, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was out vacationing at his other home on the Caribbean island of Nevis. He was there with his family and friends when a machete-wielding attacker threatened them when he came to rob them. None of these men had any concealment, which could have stopped an attacker from robbing the men, which is the case in Maryland.

Self-defense

In this research paper, we will explain and discuss the “Stand Your Ground” law and how it relates to “Self Defense”. As you talk about this law you must incorporate a lot of different situations and cases. As well as this law being changed or tweaked multiple times. Nowadays a lot of people don’t actually understand the “Stand Your Ground” law and when it falls into effect. We will also weigh out the pros and cons of the Stand Your Ground law. As well as describe the meaning and the law of the Castle Doctrine. This is a law people may use to try and get themselves out of trouble and make an excuse for their criminal actions. When dealing with this law you must know if you were in the right way of the situation or could have done something different.

What is the Stand Your Ground law?

A Stand Your Ground law sometimes called ‘line in the sand’ or ‘no duty to retreat’ law builds up a privilege by which an individual may protect one’s self or others’ right of self-defense against dangers or threats, even to the point of applying deadly power, paying little respect to whether securely withdrawing from the circumstance may have been conceivable. For example, In November 2007, a Houston man drawled out a shotgun and murdered two men whom; he associated with burglarizing his neighbor’s home. Joe Horn, a 61-year-old retiree, called 911 and asked the administrator to “Catch these folks, will you? Cause, I ain’t going to release them.”(Horn, 2007) Despite being cautioned to stay inside his home, Horn expressed he would shoot, telling the administrator, “I reserve a privilege to secure myself as well, sir. The laws have been changed in this nation since September the first, and you know it.’ Said Horn.

Castle Doctrine

The thinking behind Stand Your Ground legal guidelines comes from the Castle Doctrine, according to Caroline Light, creator of ‘Stand Your Ground: A History of America’s Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense,’ and senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University. The Castle Doctrine was a frequent law that allowed for a character to defend themselves in the home, whereas ordinary English common law doctrine referred to individuals having a responsibility to shrink back when faced with an opposing threat. Light explains that the Castle Doctrine dates returned to the 1600s ‘and was once the one exception to the responsibility to throwback to keep the existence and let the kingdom adjudicate the wrong.’ Forty-six states, including Connecticut, have joined the Castle Doctrine into law. Connecticut law legitimizes the utilization of reasonable physical power, including fatal power, with regard to premises. Connecticut courts have perceived the custom-based law benefit to challenge an unlawful entry into one’s home, to the degree that an individual’s direct doesn’t ascend to the degree of a crime. Fatal power is defended with regard to one’s property by an individual who is favored to be on the premises and who sensibly accepts such power is important to avert an attempt by the criminal trespasser to perpetrate any crime of brutality.

Pros & Cons of Stand Your Ground

There are bounty pros and cons when discussing and talking about the Stand Your Ground law. One of these pros is It can prompt a drop in crime that happens. For instance, Dennis Baxley, a Florida Senate MSNBC during a 2012 social affair for Florida’s hold snappy laws that the state had seen an emotional drop in the terrible conduct since the establishment’s execution. That is on the grounds that the structure of the law is to ensure the individuals who are assaulted without giving obstruction or genuine focal points to the individuals who are aggressors. ‘There’s nothing in this goals to verify people who are looking for after and confronting others,’ Baxley said. Regardless of the way that there was a climb in real murders after the section of the law in Florida, empowering people to keep terrible things from happening can save numerous lives each year. Between 2005 to 2010, the general pace of unpleasant wrongdoing in the state dove by 23%.

One con of the Stand Your Ground law is that’s people don’t really know what it means. The Stand Your Ground laws are unclear and poorly comprehended. Numerous individuals don’t have a clue what the laws really involve or ensure, and regularly complete information on Stand Your Ground laws isn’t controlled by the jury either. ‘I think the law and people’s understanding of this law are not completely accurate and that they probably believe they are more protected in defending themselves,’ said Mark O’Mara, a defense attorney from Florida. A second and related misjudging about the law might be even more to the point. Under the standard principles of self-preservation, a protector who first incites the battle that at last prompts their utilization of fatal power is typically regarded as the ‘initial aggressor’ in the quarrel and should withdraw before utilizing dangerous power against the other, regardless of whether that litigant didn’t initially foresee a dangerous encounter and eventually executed uniquely to spare the respondent’s own life.

Self-Defense vs. Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground laws enable somebody to utilize power in self-defense when there is the sensible conviction of a danger, without a commitment to retreat first. Twenty states, plus Connecticut, have Stand Your Ground laws. These laws require the individual to have a legitimate right to be in the area and not be occupied with an unlawful movement.

Legally, self-defense is defined as “the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger.” In most cases, if you are pleading self-defense, you must also prove that you backed away from the threat with the exception being if you are in your home according to James Davis, a defense attorney. Unlike self-defense says under standard self-defense, Stand Your Ground doesn’t expect you to fall back. In any case, this doesn’t imply that you have the option to consequently utilize lethally power in a conflict. There are two assumptions that must be met, the first being that you fear dangerous power was important and the second that the individual whom you utilized power against was planning to submit a demonstration that included power or violence which normally abuses the law.

Is The Law Good?

No law is great yet when innocent lives, young lives, are being taken it is an effort for change. So how does a state approach transforming a law that has taken such a destructive turn? Americans have discussed whether Stand Your Ground laws or weapon-free zones make us more secure or less safe for quite a long time. These are debates about genuine issues that are, on a fundamental level, understandable. Without logical research on these and different themes, terrible laws will accidentally be passed or held under the mixed-up conviction that they will make us more secure.

1. Lee, S. (2019, March 9). Five ‘Stand Your Ground’ Cases You Should Know About. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/five-stand-your-ground-cases-you-should-know-about.
2. Randall, 17 Major Pros and Cons of the Stand Your Ground Law Editor-Chief – https://connectusfund.org/17-major-pros-and-cons-of-the-stand-your-ground-
3. Law M. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172
4. ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws May Be Causing More Harm Than Good
5. Andrew R.- Rosanna – https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/09/stand-your-ground-laws-increase-violence.html