100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Criminology Unit 3 3.2 Model Answer $3.97   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

Criminology Unit 3 3.2 Model Answer

10 reviews
 2010 views  43 purchases
  • Course
  • Institution

This is a document is a full mark model answer for Criminology Unit 3 (Crime scene to courtroom) 3.2. This can be used as inspiration for your brief for the controlled assessment, or taken into the controlled assessment for guidance. WARNING: you may be disqualified from the exam for plagiarism if ...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 3  pages

  • February 2, 2022
  • 3
  • 2021/2022
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

10  reviews

review-writer-avatar

By: bulai_larisa • 9 months ago

review-writer-avatar

By: scarbuck4 • 11 months ago

review-writer-avatar

By: henokefre • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: kelesomer981 • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: abikcass • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: jasminewarner • 1 year ago

review-writer-avatar

By: vimbaibarbra • 1 year ago

Show more reviews  
avatar-seller
3.2 - Draw conclusions from information

Unsafe Verdicts and Miscarriages of Justice:
A miscarriage of justice is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as ‘a situation in
which someone is punished by the law courts for a crime that they have not commited’.
If the Court of Appeal declares a case to be a miscarriage of justice, they will order a
re-trial. An unsafe verdict is a wrongful conviction, and it may occur if it is not fully
evidence if the defendant is innocent or guilty. If this occurs, the conviction will be
overturned as courts have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt for a defendant to be
found guilty. Multiple factors may cause an unsafe verdict, such as the judge misdirecting
the jury or the failure to present relevant evidence. Link to brief
An unsafe verdict occurred in the case of Stephen Downing. Stephen Downing
was convicted of the murder of Wendy Sewell in 1974, when he was aged 17. He was
taken to the police station and questioned for nine hours without a solicitor. He was
coerced into signing a confession, despite having the reading age of an 11 year old. The
court was misled by the forensic scientist, who testified that the blood found on
Downing’s clothes could have only been there if he commited the crime. He was later
found not guilty, after serving 27 years in prison. Therefore, influences such as the lack
of access to a solicitor and the misleading from the expert witness, all led to a
miscarriage of justice.

Just Verdicts
A just verdict is a fair or impartial judgment, and it does justice to the facts of the
case. This means that guilty parties are found guilty, and the innocent remain innocent.
In 2003, the double jeopardy law was changed, so that those who had been acquitted of
an offence could be prosecuted again. The original idea behind this law was to prevent
an abuse of state power, so an individual could not be repeatedly retried to fit a political
agenda. This law was changed after a campaign by Ann Ming, whose daughter, Julie
Hogg, was murdered by Billy Dunlop. The campaign subsequently led to the overturning
of the double jeopardy law.
In the campaign for change conducted by Ann Ming, she demanded for the double
jeopardy law to be overturned. This was because after the original trial of Billy Dunlop
for the murder of Julie Hogg, where he was found not guilty, he later publically admitted
he murdered her. Due to the law, Dunlop could not be retried. After relentlessly
campaigning, the law changed in 2005 and by 2006, Dunlop was convicted of the murder
of Julie. Therefore, a change in legislation then led to the just verdict of Billy Dunlop.

Jury Equity and Jury Nullification
Jury equity is when the jury’s verdict reflects their conscience, rather than directly
applying the law. Jury nullification can be seen when a verdict comes from the deliberate
rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law, and this may occur if the jury wants to
send political messages. The judge may have a contradictory perspective of the law, so

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ThatCriminologyShop. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $3.97. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

85169 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$3.97  43x  sold
  • (10)
  Add to cart