留学生法律过程中的举证分析 Law Essay [2]
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:13054
论文字数:3640论文编号:org201409201251211313语种:英语 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。
ows juries to decide the verdict and the sympathy factor can play a part in mitigating the sentence, which deviates from the fundamental issue of criminal liability.
Legal rule not
Medical insanity
The rules for establishing insanity are entirely based upon legal formulas. Medical professions have criticised the law because the legal definition on insanity is ‘medically irrelevant’ it dates from 1843 and the courts do not take medical views on insanity into account. Smith and Hogan argue that the rules are about responsibility rather that insanity, The legal definition of insanity is only concerned with defect of reason and is not designed to take into account the developments of modern medical science. Due to the medical and legal advances it bears no relation to modern society. The Law Commission stated “the application of these antiquated rules is becoming increasingly difficult and artificial. For example, the key concept of 'disease of the mind' has no agreed psychiatric meaning”. Lord denning in rv bratty states “Any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind.”
2 Doctors
The definition of “disease of the mind” is a very controversial issue. It is argued that according to the rules, it is a legal definition not medical. Under the criminal procedure (unfitness to plead) Act 1991 states the court must hear evidence of two medical practitioners who have experience in diagnosis of mental disorder, in order to establish the defence of insanity but this has now been overruled as the courts have continued to interpret the Rules to include within the definition states of mind that the medical profession would not classify as a “disease of the mind”.
For example, in the case of Sullivan. Despite medical evidence asserting that a disease of the mind was a disorder of brain functions for a prolonged period of time and further asserting that a seizure was not a disease of the mind, this was held to be irrelevant. It was found that the defendant’s epilepsy had during the course of the actual seizure caused impairment of faculties, which in turn caused a defect of reason, thereby satisfying the legal definition of insanity.
The case Kemp stated the concept “disease of the mind” claiming it is any internal disorder affecting the ordinary faculties of reason, memory and understanding so that the condition of the brain was irrelevant. This approach is not always reconcilable with established medical expert opinion it further heightens uncertainty with regard to the level of mental disorder required to constitute insanity.
Rule is broad
However, critics have argued that the Rules are too broad people who are suffering from physical illnesses such as diabetes Hennessy, epilepsy Sullivan, heart disease Kemp, and sleep walking Burgess are extremely outraged to discover that the law labels them legally insane as their actions stem from an ‘internal cause’. This shows the law does not differentiate between people who is a danger to society and those who suffer from medical illnesses such as diabetes and epilepsy etc, the law fails to distinguish that these conditions can be controlled by medication.
It must add further pain to the accused when the result of a successful insanity plea is not a straightforward acquittal; it is the ‘special verdict’ of ‘n
本论文由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。