Criminal defenses and Criminal Punishment
Specify the key points involved in the court determining the lawfulness of the use of force.
- Next, identify the relevance of the factors a court or a jury will consider or decide which force is reasonable in self-defense.
There are different aspects used in a court of law to determine the legalities in the utilization of force, while self-defense comprises necessity, unlawfulness, and reasonableness. Self-defense is an element that allows one to assess whether an act of force adopted for self-defense is reasonable, including violations of the actions of the other side, the need for immediate self-defense, and the rationality of self-defense. The necessity means that it is necessary to immediately use force to protect a person from the use of unlawful force or interference from others. Unlawfulness means, Is someone else engaging in illegal behavior? If the action of the other side is criminal, then such a force is unjustified. Rationality refers to the amount of force used for self-defense; if another person is protected, it should be reasonable. Generally, defense of the opposing side is an element that assesses the reasonableness of the force taken to preserve, including the illegality of actions against others, the need/ necessity to protect the opposing side immediately, and reasonableness is an act of defense. Deadly force is a force that can cause or can lead to death or severe injury (Shane & Swenson, 2018).
The jury should first evaluate the applicability of the force in the case of self-defense. They should assess the reasonability of the force. The court should also consider other aspects of the engaged parties, including the age and the physique. The tools used in self-defense and the aggressiveness of the attack should be evaluated too.
Argue for or against the use of the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Laws as a defense to prevent a guilty verdict’s rendering in a criminal homicide case.
The castle doctrine is a common law, which provides that someone is not obliged to retreat at home, and they can use reasonable force, requiring the use of deadly force to protect their property or other people (Fox et al., 2018). The Stand Your Ground Laws and the castle doctrines play an essential role in actively defending the accused or in preventing convictions of criminal homicides. At the same time, “Stand Your Ground law” allows a person to use deadly force to respond to an unlawful attack, which contrasts sharply with the traditional obligations of a retreat policy. The law also allows a person to use deadly force for self-defense when there are reasonable reasons to believe in a threat and not backing down in the first place. “Deadly force “in some cases is feasible by fundamental laws, such as an inevitable injury or death (Guettabi & Munasib, 2018).
In a case titled Hair v. State heard in Florida courts, the court ruled out that a passenger who had killed unlawful individuals who wanted to get into the vehicle forcefully could not be charged with murder based on the Stand Your Ground law. The ruling was based on the law, which states that any person who makes a forceful entry is presumed to bring along a threat to the passengers. The court also argued that time did not matter; that is, when the passenger fired the gun, the stranger was backing out (Guettabi & Munasib, 2018).
Therefore, I argue that the Stand Your Ground Law would not have been applicable in this case. The law allows one to use deadly force in threat prevention or bodily harm. This law should not have been used to render the verdict in the homicide case as the defendant has already committed a serious crime that is murder. The passenger should be held accountable for his actions. The plaintiff should also have the jury representing him; this will ensure that a fair playground prevails. Evidence obtained from the crime scene should also have been used in rendering the verdict. This ability was hindered by a lawyer’s unavailability to engage the prosecutor on the availability and validity of the evidence used. The lawyer should also call for a plea bargain, which will call for the appeal of the case.
Compare and contrast the defense of diplomatic, legislative, and witness immunity. Analyze the overall role of the defense play within the criminal justice system. Evaluate the general level of fairness of witness immunity that applies to the defense.
Legislative immunity is granted to senators, representatives, and state legislators with a limited degree of provisional immunity at legislative meetings. Following paragraph 1 of Article 1, the provision, Regulations, and statements on speeches and debates may be held before the break of the legislative body, immunity of state legislators from prosecution for federal delinquencies (Scoville, 2013). The defense of diplomatic immunity is an international agreement on the status of diplomats living abroad. Such immunity may also have the hometown of diplomats. For serious crimes, the US government usually requires an exemption. Witness immunity gives federal and state attorneys the right to call witnesses to testify. However, according to the Fifth Amendment, witnesses cannot be forced to testify. The federal government and states have adopted various exceptions to resolve conflicts. This immunity exempts witnesses from prosecution and protects human rights through the Fifth Amendment when forced to answer questions that may lead to legal proceedings.
Congress is concerned that a complete exclusion impedes federal crime efforts and changes the measures taken. The use of exceptions makes the testimony of witnesses useless in subsequent prosecutions. Still, as long as the evidence is used to prove their ignorance and unlawful condemnation of the law, the witness can be held accountable. The overall role of the defense plays a role in the criminal justice system in terms of legislation, diplomacy, and witness immunity. Two types of exceptions are transaction exceptions and usage exceptions. Exemption from the transaction requires that witnesses not be prosecuted for any crime related to the subject of testimony (Birzer & Roberson, 2018).
Witness and legislative immunity have some similarities in dismissing charges against state senators, representatives, and lawmakers. Both explained that the representatives are protected by article 6.1. Besides, witness and diplomatic immunity also differ, since diplomatic immunity refers to the international agreement on the status of different countries. Witness immunities deal with federal and state prosecutors who have the right to call witnesses to testify. Witness immunity differs from diplomatic immunity and the legislation since the Fifth Amendment protects personal rights and does not force testimony.
I take a different view that the overall fairness of a witness’s immunity to defense is considered a good defense. This is a suitable strategy because the Fifth Amendment protects the person, and they are not required to answer any questions that may raise questions.
The two elements of the defense of entrapment. Support or critique the value of the defense within the criminal law system in the United States.
Two elements of the entrapment are the accused’s lack of incentives for criminal behavior” and the government’s inappropriate motivation to commit crimes. The concept is protection from excessive temptation by law enforcement officials or urges defendants to commit a crime by mistake. In the United States, the importance of protection in the criminal law system is significant. The court systems must recognize that law enforcement officials can create the usual opportunities to provoke others (Ristroph, 2018)
Argue for or against the “Three Strikes” Laws
“Three Strike” laws are designed to stop crimes by significantly increasing the imprisonment of repeat offenders. They sentenced them to mandatory detention for repeated acts. This conviction applies to subsequent sentences after convictions to persons previously convicted of serious crimes or punishments requiring imprisonment for a term of at least one year (Huigens & Chinea, 2018). These laws are considered the most stringent in California. This is due to the interpretation of the felony. A third or provoked conviction may be a criminal offense, not necessarily a violent crime. Subsequently, each account must be sentenced to 25 years in prison and counted several times in a row. The first two blows can be a conviction for any felony, although not necessarily violent crimes.
I argue for the “Three Strikes” laws, which suitable in ensuring that ignorance does not prevail in the repeated offenders. There are offenders with strong believes that they cannot be repeat offenders. The “Three Strike” law will be suitable for such characters. The code can also be used to deter people from repeatedly being engaged in crime.
Reference
Birzer, M., & Roberson, C. (2018). Introduction to criminal investigation. CRC Press.
Ristroph, A. (2018). The Thin Blue Line from Crime to Punishment. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 108, 305.
Huigens, K., & Chinea, D. (2018). ‘Three Strikes’ Laws and Apprendi’s Irrational, Inequitable Exception for Recidivism.
Scoville, R. M. (2013). Legislative Diplomacy. Mich. L. Rev., 112, 331.
Shane, J., & Swenson, Z. (2018). Unarmed and dangerous: Patterns of threats by citizens during deadly force encounters with police. Routledge.
Guettabi, M., & Munasib, A. (2018). Stand Your Ground laws, homicides, and gun deaths. Regional Studies, 52(9), 1250-1260.
Fox, J. A., Levin, J., & Quinet, K. (2018). The will to kill: Making sense of senseless murder. SAGE Publications.