Essay on Law & Punishment: Understanding Criminal Court Proceedings

Introduction

Law generally refers to the set of rules certified by a particular state to govern and be implemented among its people, which are majorly imposed by the courts imposing penalties on the offenders. The laws of the land vary from one state to another. They depend on the terms of the agreement by the governing bodies and their choice to regulate the leadership's favor. As much as the laws in a country may differ, the criminal court proceedings on civil cases can be said to be conducted similarly.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The standard demands evidence ought to be presented as the judge is mandated to explain the essential law concerning a jury giving the jurors the authority to examine the facts laid strictly and determine the verdict to be given to the offenders (Shankland, 2009). In case there is no jury present, the verdict of a case has directly relied on the judge who gives the offender the seemingly worthy judgment in level to the weight of the case and the defense offered. The offender is taken through several stages in a case hearing to ensure they fully have their rights exercised in a court of law. They first have the first hearing for their, which is generally called the arraignment to notify them of their offenses. The arraignment is meant to offer the defendant charges in a written notice to enable them to enter a play in the courtroom to incite a commencement of the court process. The arraignment is usually done at averagely within the first 48 hours after an arrest if the defendant is in jail.

The article presents how the cases are handled in a courtroom. Facts are laid before the judges to facilitate a verdict against the defendant. A third party reflection on the case progress will also be presented in support of to challenge the verdict made on the case to show if the presentation is justified. The article involves an external source that will argue to support the thirty's opinion—argument bases on case proceedings and decisions given by the judge in favor of or against the offender. The case argued in the article will be as a result of a court visit and the details will be from what is observed as just a representation of many cases of different categories that judges have to make a verdict but which follow the same procedure that is involved (Shankland, 2009). A case carries the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge who is the mediator of the two parties on whose verdict the matter relies. The paper will also table out the condition of an offender in a courtroom. It concerns how they feel after committing an offense and whether they also claim justice on their perspective. The level of court ethics demanded a fair proceeding will be depicted as the claims seem to go against the influence of external forces in a verdict to a case of the law.

Bremer County Court

A court case of 19 years old William Clayton of Osage is presented in a court where he is also in jail as the awaited his hearing and the proceedings to be followed appropriately before the judge. William is attached to another suspect for the same case, Jeremiah Mumford, aged 24 years from New Hampton. William is escorted by two sheriff's deputies who are allowed to have a word with Bolinger, his attorney from the Public Defender's Office. This is a vital session to prepare a defendant with the essential answers for the questions to follow. The case proceedings demand an opening statement from the prosecutor, followed by an opening statement from the defendant's side (Dunham, 1962). The defendant is allowed to hear the offenses committed well stated before the court in response to cooperate or deny the charges before them. William is accused of eight counts attempted murder was in escape from the local authorities. They shot two police officers. The next offense was six counts of intimidation with dangerous weapons, five counts of terrorism, which was concerning the bank robbery. Eight counts of assault on a peace officer with intent to inflict serious injury where Trooper Mark Domino and Sumner Chief Dennis Cain suffered as the victims. He was then lastly charged with eight counts of assault on a peace officer by the display of a dangerous weapon, which was by the use of guns in the failed escape.

The crimes that William committed involving murder, assault, terrorism, and intimidation are categorized as the Class B felonies, which are stated as severe but not most dangerous of them all. They are countered with a severe penalty, which is all determined by the evidence provident by the prosecutor and the ability for the defense to handle the case. The possible penalties involve extreme fines and lengthy jail sentences accumulative of all the charges stated against you. The judge takes charge with a question on how the defendant pleads, and clearly, they plead not guilty of the charges stated.

Court Proceedings

At this level, the battle is steered between William, the defendant, and the prosecutor's side by the prosecutor's direct examination as the witnesses avail themselves on the board. The witness affirms that all the charges stated happened in the local area where the robbery took place with several pictures and a live video provided to the court (Dunham, 1962). The witness comes in as an average business person and a resident in the area who coincidentally visited the bank to make a business withdrawal of funds. The defense holds ground as he disagrees with the witness and poses a challenge to remain in denial until judged guilty. The session is then proceeded by motions on the case where the prosecutor pins the defendant concerning the evidence that has been provided and explains his order of the day's events that has to free him from being involved with the robbery. The evidence was more substantial than an observer would anticipate, and the defense seemed to stand in crucified in the charges stated earlier in the court. There are few chances for a defendant to deny charges on a live shooting. The attorney in favor of William countered the video evidence concerning the improved technology where video evidence cannot serve as adequate evidence for a murder case as it can be altered to suit the interest of the involved individual.

The more the defendant side approached in denial, the more evidence was provided. The firearm retrieved from the scene matched the fingerprints of the last operator who remained to be William Clayton. The proceedings seemed to get the judge more interested and, above all, more convinced that William was the suspect and the right one. The denial could no longer be withheld to the level of denying the fingerprints, and the judge had to take a side as per the evidence provided (Dunham, 1962). The prosecutor had his side of argument steaming cross-examination to the defendant, where the final safer action was to choose silence as advised by the attorney in charge. The judge was not given the platform to decide the fate of the coin as he stated William guilty of the charges with full persuasion of both sides’ arguments. The proceedings act as the way to develop a story to the judge from the ground level to the accomplishment where all events tabled out the sides with the more reliable facts presented before the court. From this level of facts, the defendant can either be set free for a fine or jailed with a fine or jail term with no fine. The verdict reached was jail term for Williams as he was now found guilty of the stated charges. The only way to have your records cleaned as an offender is after seven years or when a felon happens to have their records sealed at the background check level.

Comparison with Relevant material

In the view of the observer to William’s case, duress as a defense for the murder case would be applicable as the consideration is made on the fact that the offender accuses a threat to his life as he is forced to the shooting against his better judgment. Common law has developed across nations where the rule was initially killing another person with 'malice aforethought' but now expanded to 'express and implied malice' (Shankland, 2009, p.1232). The implied malice killer can be ruled clean of the intention to kill but rather, the level of dilemma magnitude placed before he portrays a malignant heart action. Placing William in this position, he made an attempt to escape, which failed through the local authorities' presence, which gave him no option but rather to make his attempt to the moment of surrender.

When a government enforces the rules to do with the murder, they make their attempt to deter dangerous conduct among people in the society for the well-being of everyone. The theory of retribution would place strong defense for the government action on those people who cause harm are not responsible enough in society, thus deserving a punishment (Fletcher, 1999, p.55). Having much reflection on the morally right action, we cannot ignore the general intent portrayed by an individual or the reason they committed the involved crime. In some cases, a person faced by murder charges can be weighed a lower penalty as the charges can be waved as a misdemeanor. The offense is ruled out as a 'wobbler' thus falling under the category of a felony or a misdemeanor (The California Penal Code Section 17 b). The judges have the mandate to make a general rule and verdict over any case and thus should practice the rule of law to its capacity by ensuring that justice is air higher in every courtroom. Every offender gets the penalty they deserve. The law enforcement agents serve a role for the general good of the society to remain at peace with all.

References

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKJLBNteq9U

Dunham, A. (1962). Griggs v. Allegheny County in Perspective: Thirty Years of Supreme Court Expropriation Law. The Supreme Court Review, 1962, 63-106.

Fletcher, G. P. (1999). The place of victims in the theory of retribution. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 3(1), 51-63.

Shankland, R. (2009). Duress and the underlying felony. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1227-1258.