Garantie de satisfaction à 100% Disponible immédiatement après paiement En ligne et en PDF Tu n'es attaché à rien
logo-home
Criminology Unit 3 3.2 Model Answer 3,70 €   Ajouter au panier

Examen

Criminology Unit 3 3.2 Model Answer

10 revues
 2009 vues  43 fois vendu
  • Cours
  • Établissement

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 ...

[Montrer plus]

Aperçu 1 sur 3  pages

  • 2 février 2022
  • 3
  • 2021/2022
  • Examen
  • Questions et réponses

10  revues

review-writer-avatar

Par: bulai_larisa • 9 mois de cela

review-writer-avatar

Par: scarbuck4 • 11 mois de cela

review-writer-avatar

Par: henokefre • 1 année de cela

review-writer-avatar

Par: kelesomer981 • 1 année de cela

review-writer-avatar

Par: abikcass • 1 année de cela

review-writer-avatar

Par: jasminewarner • 1 année de cela

review-writer-avatar

Par: vimbaibarbra • 1 année de cela

Afficher plus de commentaires  
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

Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

Qualité garantie par les avis des clients

Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.

L’achat facile et rapide

L’achat facile et rapide

Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.

Focus sur l’essentiel

Focus sur l’essentiel

Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.

Foire aux questions

Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?

Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.

Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?

Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.

Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?

Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur ThatCriminologyShop. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.

Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?

Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 3,70 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.

Peut-on faire confiance à Stuvia ?

4.6 étoiles sur Google & Trustpilot (+1000 avis)

85169 résumés ont été vendus ces 30 derniers jours

Fondée en 2010, la référence pour acheter des résumés depuis déjà 14 ans

Commencez à vendre!
3,70 €  43x  vendu
  • (10)
  Ajouter