What four broad categories of criminal defenses does our legal system recognize? Under what circumstances might each be employed?
What will be an ideal response?
The four categories of criminal defense recognized include alibi, justification, excuse, and procedural defense. An alibi means that the defendant was somewhere else at the time of the crime. When a defendant offers a justification, he or she admits to the wrong but argues that it was necessary to avoid a greater evil. A defendant offering an excuse claims that a personal condition or circumstance was such that he or she should not be held accountable under the law. A defendant who makes a procedural defense claims that he or she was discriminated against in some way or appropriate procedures were not followed.
You might also like to view...
There are four main goals of contacts. Which of the following is not one of the main goals?
A. Reinforcers B. Engagement C. Assessment D. Early Change E. Sustained Change
Under Common Law, children under 10 had no criminal capacity
a. True b. False
Describe the different ways in which the death of law enforcement officers are tracked by the UCR data.
What will be an ideal response?
In Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955), the Supreme Court heard a substantive due process challenge to an Oklahoma law that said that opticians could only grind lenses and fit eyeglasses when presented with a prescription from an ophthalmologist or an optometrist. The law was challenged as unreasonable, unwise, and wasteful. The Supreme Court ______.
A. upheld the law, saying that questions about the wisdom or need for a particular law should be answered by the legislature and not the courts. Thus, challenges to such laws should be made through the electoral process and not through lawsuits B. struck down the law, explaining that although the relevance of substantive due process had declined, it still barred states from enacting regulatory laws without sufficient evidence demonstrating the need for such regulation C. struck down the law, saying that the state had failed to show that it had a compelling state interest in passing such legislation D. upheld the law, concluding that the state had satisfied its obligations under the compelling state interest test