These are my answers that I used to achieve a near perfect 95/100 marks on the Year 13 Unit 3 Criminology controlled assessment. Of course, I changed it as needed during the exam, but these were the backbones of my answers. This resource covers AC 2.4 This detailed answer is well-developed after th...
thanks for taking the time to leave another review, wishing you the best for all future exams!
Door: ebonywilliamss223 • 10 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 10 maanden geleden
hiya! thanks for leaving a review i'm glad it helped you out :) ... wishing you the best of luck for unit three!!
Door: amrita90 • 10 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 10 maanden geleden
thanks for taking the time to leave a couple of reviews, i'm wishing you the best for all future exams!
Door: luciefranks • 11 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 11 maanden geleden
hi again :) thanks for leaving another review - best of luck with unit three, you'll do brilliantly !!!
Door: elizabaciu1425 • 11 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 11 maanden geleden
thanks for leaving a review, good luck with unit threeeeee !!!!!
Door: esssaaa • 1 jaar geleden
Door: rin4 • 11 maanden geleden
thanks for your review - hope unit three goes (or went if it's already happened) brilliantly!!!
Door: samisalem • 11 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 11 maanden geleden
hello! thanks for the review and good luck with your unit three NEA, you'll do great !! :)
Bekijk meer beoordelingen
Verkoper
Volgen
rin4
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
AC 2.4: Assess Key Influences Affecting Outcomes of Criminal Cases
There are many key influences that could affect the outcome of a criminal case. One of these aspects
are witnesses, who are not called into court unless there is a disagreement between the prosecution
and defence. When a witness is on the stand, being questioned and cross-examined is called
‘examination in chief’. A seemingly believable witness may influence the jury, such as Kate Moss
testifying in the widely broadcast Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard trial.
Her testimony seemed so believable due to her nature of not speaking about her relationships
publicly. Furthermore, she seemingly had nothing to gain from lying for Depp’s character, thereby
increasing her believability.
Studies have also found that stereotyping of witnesses by the jury may also be very influential in
affecting the case’s outcome, such as the research conducted by Kaufmann investigating the attitude
of juries towards rape victims. His research found that juries were influenced by the emotions of the
victim on the stand – for example, the jury was more inclined to believe a victim who was visibly
upset on the stand, and less likely to believe a victim if they seemed to hold in their emotions.
The Innocence Project found that of 352 cases where the guilty verdict was successfully overturned,
a witness testimony was found to be flawed in 70% of them.
Another key influence that affects the outcome of criminal cases are the barristers and legal teams.
Firstly, the cost of them is influential because different people can afford different lawyers with
varying experience and expertise. Those who can afford the best lawyers are often from a
background of a high status or have important connections. As a result, a less experienced lawyer
might be able to influence a jury less than an experienced lawyer.
The presence of the lawyers themselves can also be very influential due to their charisma and
watchability. As a result, jurors may want them to be telling the truth, and therefore want their case
to win. This could also lead to juror infatuation, which influences the choice the juror makes greatly.
An example of juror infatuation is the case of Claire Lintott: Christopher Alder, a former paratrooper,
died in 1998 after being left unconscious on the floor of a police station in Hull. An inquest into his
death was carried out in court in 2000, where barrister Leslie Thomas represented his family.
However, juror Claire Lintott's 'infatuation' with Thomas was considered to have potentially tainted
the verdict's credibility. In the 2001 hearing, it was found that messages between the two had been
exchanged since the day that the inquest had ended, and that they had met twice shortly after its
conclusion. In her initial interview, Lintott lied about sending messages as soon as the inquest had
ended, but the judge said that the relationship "appears to be both intimate and intense," although
called her reasons for lying "plausible." During Christopher Alder's trial, Lintott had been one of two
jurors to complain about another juror's racist attitudes, meaning she was considered "an important
and influential" member of the jury. The judge concluded that for that reason among others, "the
claimants have not made a case out of apparent bias."
However, plea bargaining can also have an influence on a criminal case’s outcome. This is a result of
directly affecting what crime you are deemed as guilty for and the sentence you receive.
Experts also play a significant role in the outcome of the case. For example, if a case is complicated
or difficult to understand, the jurors won’t have the specialist knowledge required to understand it.
Consequently, the jurors will trust the expert’s opinions to be true because they don’t know how to
challenge them. An example of a case in which expert testimonies were trusted, yet inaccurate, was
the case of Donna Anthony. Anthony was jailed in 1998 for the murder of her two babies. Over six
years later, she was cleared of the murders and freed from prison. Paediatrician Professor Sir Roy
Meadow testified at her trial, also testifying at several other women’s trials. He told the court that
the chances of two babies dying of natural causes in a family like Donna Anthony's was in in 73
million. His evidence was later discredited, but due to the jury's lack of knowledge surrounding
paediatrics, they saw no reason to not believe this statistic, especially considering that Meadow was
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper rin4. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,14. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
