英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

留学生法律过程中的举证分析 Law Essay

论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-09-22编辑:zcm84984点击率:4326

论文字数:3640论文编号:org201409201251211313语种:英语论文 English地区:美国价格:免费论文

关键词:法律术语举证责任Law Essay改革法案

摘要:本文是一篇留学生法律过程中的举证分析 Law Essay,精神错乱防御的改革法案,立于1984年,已经表明了举证责任从起诉转移到了防御,证据的标准从证据的优势增加到清晰而令人信服的证据。

Insanity Reform Act Burden Of Proof Law Essay

精神错乱的改革法案的举证责任


精神错乱防御的改革法案,立于1984年,已经表明了举证责任从起诉转移到了防御,证据的标准从证据的优势增加到清晰而令人信服的证据。对于抵制精神病需要不同标准的证据,但是这依靠于那些已经增加神病抵御或者对其进行起诉的人们。不同点就是抵御力度必须证明可能性的平衡,且起诉的人必须毫无置疑地证实。这最有可能迷惑陪审团。它与Woolmington v DPP的案例(1953)的决定相冲突,它表明了压力在基于控诉是在证明犯罪而不是辩护。被告人不得不证明当她犯罪的时候是在发精神病。这给被告人施加了举证责任。批评学家认为对于举证责任对于被告人来说是不公平的。他们声称有可能ECHR的ART6是违反的,这表明了被告人是无辜的,直到被证明他是有罪的。

上议院在1843年建立了M'Naghten规则,它确定了精神病的法律术语。


The insanity defence reform Act 1984 has stated the burden of proof was shifted from the prosecution to the defence and the standard of evidence was increased from predominance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence. There is different standard of proof required for the defence of insanity, but this depends on who has raised the defence of insanity the defence or the prosecution. The difference is that the defence must prove on the balance of probabilities, and the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is most likely to confuse juries. It conflicts with the decision in the case of Woolmington v DPP (1953) which states that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the offence not the defence. The defendant has to prove that s/he was suffering from insanity when s/he committed the offence. This places the evidential burden on the defendant. Critics have argued that it is unfair that the evidential burden is on the defendant they claim that there is possibilities that Art 6 of the ECHR is in breach, which states that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

The House of Lords established the M’Naghten rules in 1843, it defines the legal terminology of insanity. To establish the defence of insanity, the accused must satisfy the M’Naghten rules. This presents that an individual is presumed sane unless it can be proven that at the time of the offence he was “labouring under such defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”

Rules should be abolished because its old

The law on insanity is outdated and in need for urgent reform. The legal definition of insanity has not changed since 1842 and in 1953 evidence provided to the Royal Commission stated the definition of insanity was obsolete and misleading. The issue of insanity has been recognised by the law commission and they include insanity in the 10th programme of reform. They stated “The problems with the existing law are many and serious …and the current rules for determining legal insanity date from 1842.   In those days, the science of psychiatry was in its infancy.” The law commission recommended the abolishment of the M’Naghten rules but this didn’t occur, instead Diminished Responsibility (DR) was introduced as a partial defence to murder.

Critics supported the defence of DR, as they believed it alleviate the uncertainties created by the insanity defence. The defence requires proof that the defendant was suffering from “abnormality of mind”, which “substantially impaired” mental responsibility for their acts. DR is determined by the juries, the defence is open to be interpreted “in accordance with the morality of the case rather than the application of psychiatric concepts”. However the defence of insanity and DR has a major flaw, as it all论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。

共 1/7 页首页上一页1234567下一页尾页

英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非

   Europe (24-hours)
   EN:13917206902
   china (24-hours)
   CN:13917206902
在线客服团队
    全天候24小时在线客服
      QQ:949925041 
  

微信公众订阅号