Diplomatic Immunity In Criminal Justice

Often there is argument about a person’s intentions when a crime is committed. There are instances when a person causes serious bodily harm to someone without actually meaning to. A person is driving down the freeway heading home from work. The person’s tires on the vehicle blow out and they subsequently have an accident causing the death of another person. The driver of the vehicle did in fact kill someone else which is murder. The intent of the person was definitely not to hurt anyone, but the incident took the life of an innocent person. Should that driver, who had no control of the vehicle, be punished for murder even though there was no criminal intent? These are things that prosecutors of the state have to deliberate and attempt to prove
in order to convict a person of a crime. Prosecutors are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a crime and the specific intent. The mental state of a person justifies their actions in cases.
Just like all other crimes, the prosecution must show that the defendant committed an actus reus and had the necessary mens rea in order to get a conviction for acting as an accessory. To attain a verdict of a defendant for being a primary or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must ascertain that the defendant committed an act that whichever stimulated or essentially helped the criminal. Also the prosecution has to prove that he had the necessary intent of inspiring or helping the criminal, and that the defendant actually committed the crime. A good example would be if I told a friend that I am going to rob a bank and that I need a ride to go. My friend says that he thinks it’s a good idea and drives me to the bank knowing my intent is to rob the bank. I rob the bank, he drives me home and I give him a share of the money I just stole. The police arrest me and him for aggravated robbery and take us to jail. My friend will be arrested for aggravated robbery and be charged as an accomplice because he knew that I intended to rob the bank and helped me commit the crime by driving me there.
Determining if a perpetrator has the required mental capacity to commit a crime is vital. The intent of a person is often the foundation of murder cases across the country. There are many cases where a serial killer takes innocent people and murder them among other gruesome crimes. The intent of the perpetrator is to deprive the victims of life and commit a crime. Often defense attorneys fight to prove that they are mentally incapable to stand trial and should be committed into a psychiatric facility. When we break it down a person has to devise a plan to kidnap a person and come up with a place to take the victims. Then the suspect has to actually go through the motions of killing a person and disposing of their bodies. This requires thought and a person suffering from a mental illness do not possess that knowledge. This is why prosecutors around the country are fighting day and night to no allow these individuals to be let out of jail on a technicality such as the mental capacity.
Diplomatic immunity is defined as a code of international law by which certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities for both their official and, to a large extent, their personal activities.
The term diplomatic immunity is popularly, and erroneously, understood to refer to special protections afforded all employees of foreign governments who are present in the United States as official representatives of their home governments. This is often abused by immigrants that come to America and commit crimes believing that they cannot be held liable due to them being from another country. Legislative immunity a legal policy that averts legislators from being prosecuted for actions done and choices made in the progress of serving in regime. This policy does not defend legislators from illegal action; neither does it dismiss them from accountability for engagements separate from the range of their office. I think that it is a great doctrine that protects Americans that go abroad and are not aware of the customs and laws that govern these foreign countries. In some nations what we consider normal behavior may be a crime and offensive to another country. An example would be in the Middle East men beat their wives and it’s not a crime, but here in America Family Violence is not tolerated and is prosecuted as a felony offense. If a diplomat from the Middle East was here in America conducting his duties and he hits his wife,
there would be immunity because he is not used to the laws that govern us here in America.
I believe that the courts should not hold a person who is no mentally competent to the same standards as a person with a full mental capacity. A great example would be if a mentally retarded person left alone for a while, goes into his parent’s room and gets a gun. Upon the return of his parents he gets scared and squeezes the trigger of the gun and kills one of his parents. The mentally retarded person did not have the full mental capacity to think of the consequences of him pulling the trigger. The argument could be that he may not even know what a gun was, he simply was looking through drawers and noticed a shiny object. I personally think that if evidence shows that a person is mentally challenged and does not possess the knowledge and skills to know right from wrong, then he or she should not be held responsible for a crime. With that being said they should be placed in a place where events such as these cannot happen again. They should be placed in a facility, where they could be cared for and get treatment for their illnesses or deficiencies. I believe that this is an adequate sentencing for the actions that the person took.
The first goal of criminal law is to discourage and deter people from committing crimes.
The purpose of deterrence is to dispirit people from committing crimes by setting a model of what the penalties of crime can be. A modern example would be putting up a tow away zone for people who park in a lot illegally. This sign lets violators know that if they park in the parking lot without authorization their vehicle will be towed away. The next goal of criminal law is to protect society from dangerous and harmful people. This is why law enforcement agencies are gainfully employed to ensure the safety of law abiding citizens. Law enforcement agencies respond to illegal acts and actively go after criminals to ensure the safety of citizens and society. This goal goes hand and hand with the third goal, which is punishing people who have committed crimes. Law enforcement arrest criminals and they are prosecuted in the courts. Prosecutors along with investigators gather evidence and have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. Then a jury of peers that live in the community hears the case and vote on the guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The last goal is to rehabilitate and reform people who have committed crimes. By implementing punishment such as fines, community service and jail time, the government hopes that a criminal will learn from his mistakes and change his ways. The goal of criminal law is to ensure that innocent people are
not prosecuted for a crime that they did not commit. This is the reason for prosecutors having to prove that the defendant committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.