Should a person be convicted of murder when they were never allowed to present their defense?
831297
Now you know why we cannot stop crimes against children in this country.
305947
It depends on a ton of stuff. Was a weapon used? Is it state or local court? If a weapon or something can be perceieved as a weapon you are looking at roughly 5 years. Also if the person was permanantly injured they can try you under something different... forgot what it was called.. but they can get you for up to 20 years for that, though they rarely do.. give me a few and I will remember what that was called, its an odd word.\n\n\n-I think it's called "Malice" you never see it used in court anyhow, the sentences are pretty high, 99% plea to something lesser.
25656
Murder is a criminal offense and as such the accused must be proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his/her peers.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused does not have to testify.  The accused is entitled to representation by an attorney who will ensure that only admissible evidence is presented and also will cross-exam prosecution witnesses to shake their story and credibility.\n\nThe accused may get off if shown to be innocent, if evidence fails to prove guilt and sometimes on a technicality, such as unreasonable search without a warrant.\n\nOnly an attorney can advise an individual regarding the law.
313865
Under the Model Penal Code of criminality, which is the default rule of criminal law in the United States, there are certain defenses that people, who cannot crontrol their own physical functions, can use.\n\nOne of them is the defense of mental illness. \n\nI believe, persoanlly, that if the person in question has been deemed mentally ill by at least three unaffiliated experts, then that person can use the defense as it is prescribed by the Model Penal Code. It is simply too broad of a statement to say that we should hold the mentally ill responsible for their illegal acts. More should be done to help prevent them from getting into those situations.
115819
No because it is too late.  You allowed the person to be found guilty already and is awaiting sentencing.  You can make a statement to the judge before sentence is passed down by the judge.
860134
I beleive that once you have commited a heinous crime against another human being, not petty thfts, but say theft with an agrivated assault thrown in, that you automatically lose all rights as being treated like a human being. You shoot a criminal in your house after he or she has just brutalized your family, and now he can sue you for assault ? Screw that, I will shoot him dead and let him try to sue me for that ?\n\nBefore someone tries to say that me killing a criminal in my own house is just as wrong, I will tell you that defending your family and property to an uninvited guest is NOT criminal, and would most likely be considered justifiable homicide.
693678
It would depend on the individual case. If the police and/or prosecution had planted evidence or hid evidence that would have proved someones innocence, then deliberately and knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, then yes, under those circumstances I feel both criminal and civil charges should be brought against the "People". But unfortunately our law system is not perfect and even when everything is done by the book, sometimes an innocent person is found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. In those cases you cannot blame the prosecution or law enforcement, and it would be unfair to penalize them.
621242
The question is puzzling.  A defendant does have the right to know what they state presumes his actions were and what they state alleges are the consequences of those acts.  In simple terms, you have a right to know everything the state may have against you.\n\nIt is hard to imagine a law that is corrupt, without any more information.  Law changes, evolves over time, as law is applied to new circumstances and conditions.\n\nThis idea of conditions of release really has more to do after the judgment, verdict and sentencing.  If a person is released, it may be conditonally.
1051055
i agree, if someone confesses to something, that should be the end of the story. however, there should always be a video of the confession, that way a person cant be held in a room for 20 hours and shot up with sodium pentathol and forced to confess to something. and, i can understand that police need to back up a confession. if someone confesses falsely, they might be doing it to protect the real killer, who's out there still killing others. but yeah, anytime i hear about someone killing a child, and they confess, they should be put to death. i hate the lawyers that find ways out of it for them. thats messed up. they should get something like this, superglue their balls to the floor, give them a dull knife and light the room on fire, then stand outside the door with a shotgun, and wait to see if they come out.
950754
no, it would just perpetuate an injustice.  encourage that person to report to the police and tell him what matters most will be that "the truth shall set us free."
50867
As a defendant's lawyer, you need to only show that there was reasonable doubt.  If you feel that this is not obtainable due to evidence that the Prosecuting team has entered, then you must plea bargain.  If you can make it beneficial to the prosecutors to lower the sentence, then they should take it.
759434
i was a juror many moons ago and let me tell you it was a farce!\ni was approached by a defence witness and to cut a long story short she ended up serving 6 months. the girl didn't tell me anything i already know and yes she shouldn't of approached me, but i think she was desperate. she also had a 6 week old baby who was put into care for the length of her sentence. The reason for the confidentiality is so that outside influences don't cloud your judgement. the decision should be entirelly upto you, on whether you convict or not. i know that after the case my husband would've voted differently to me so if i had of talked to other people then i may of been swayed
509158
I would say it does, but unfortunately our laws do not. Let me rephrase. I would say the person deserves to die. It is often what happens, because the abuser is crazy and the person being abused know that if they send the person to jail, they will still get back to them someday. Why should they live everyday in fear? In that respect I wouldn't call it murder, since murder is killing without just cause. I would call it retribution.\n\nThen again, I've never been in the situation. Maybe killing the person is far worse than anything they could have done. But like other subjects, people always rant and rave about what's right and wrong, and think they know, until they get put into that position. So I would say it's between you and God and the person being killed, but I surely wouldn't judge someone or call them sick for doing so. I would actually feel terribly sorry for the person being abused because it would have gotten THAT bad AND they will have to live with killing  someone they and their baby loved.\n\nVery good question. Not something you think about everyday! It's difficult to answer for sure, just being honest.
70620
The law varies from state to state on how the case would be tried and so forth, but someone does not need to press charges in any felony (which it may actually not be in your state). It is the state's duty to try anyone accused of a felony, if they believe they can get a conviction. They probably would not proceed if the victim was not willing to testify, however, because it would be difficult to convict. The accused would definitely not be allowed to live in the same house as the person, but they would probably be taken into custody, not the victim taken out of the home, unless the parents were aware of the abuse, in which case they could be charged as well and the victim would probably be placed in state custody. I can get a little more information if you tell us which state it is in.
734764
Then you are as guilty as the actual murderer.\n\nThe system does not work that way.\n\nEach crime has to be proved or disproved on it's own evidence. If we executed people just for being bad, them who knows what crimes we as a society might do next? We might even invade another country because of falsified evidence, just because we thought they were bad. That could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths, each of which could be considered a murder.
939266
Yes i agree. So what if he forgives them. If they are not prosecuted they will do it to someone else. He has no right to allow that to happen to someone else. Perhaps he would feel different if he knew it would be his wife or children that would go through it if he does not testify. In my book it makes him as bad as them.
670591
In my logic NO he shouldn't have, but by the screwed up justice system sadly yes.  I know if I was molested or raped and my husband or dad found out they'd kill the other person.  It would be premeditated - that would be the courts case.  Now if the victim did it in self-defense it might be a different outcome.