When involved in a criminal case, it is extremely important to become familiar with criminal defense law and to develop an adequate and effective defense. There are many different types of criminal defenses and stances that an offender may decide to take. Adopting successful and believable criminal defenses is the key to escaping conviction or receiving a lighter sentence.

One of the more common and seemingly straightforward types of criminal defenses is the infancy defense. The infancy defense may be used when a defendant is a minor who is under the age designated to be the legal age of criminal liability. Criminal defense law recognizes that children do not have the same cognitive ability as adults. Their brains are still maturing and developing, and therefore, they do not have adequate impulse control and are likely to act on negative feelings and emotions.

Children are incapable of effectively evaluating and understanding the consequences and effects of their actions. Therefore, children cannot be held liable for any criminal activity in which they take part. Federal criminal defense law has established an age that denotes when children become criminally liable for their actions. In the United States, a child cannot be held legally accountable for criminal activities if they are under the age of seven. However, this minimum age may vary a great deal from one State to another.

The majority of states within the United States have not established a minimum age in which defendants can employ infancy criminal defenses. Criminal defense law in the states of New Jersey, California, Idaho, Utah, and Texas do not hold minors liable for criminal activity if they are under the age of fourteen. Georgia, New Hampshire, New York and Illinois will not convict a child under the age of thirteen of a crime. 

These states believe that a child is not capable of intentionally committing a crime until they reach age of criminal responsibility. A minor who has not yet reached this age does not have the experience or the intellectual capacity to understand the consequences that would result from their actions. Therefore, they cannot be charged with a crime.

In other states, criminal defense law reflects the belief that even young children are aware that certain actions are wrong and detrimental. In these states, infancy criminal defenses may not be successful in avoiding legal responsibility. Instead, a minor may be tried and sentenced in the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile justice systems have been developed because states believe that minors should be held accountable for their actions, but they cannot be treated the same as adults because they do not have the same experiences, education, and physiology as adults. However, most states have established criminal defense law that does recognize certain instances in which a juvenile should be tried as an adult. In instances such as these, infancy criminal defenses will generally not be successful in absolving criminal liability.

There are many factors that are taken into consideration when debating the necessity and morality of trying a minor as an adult. These factors include the juvenile’s criminal history, the child’s age, and the severity of the crime that they have committed

International law is a very complex and often confusing topic. Throughout the majority of history, international law has focused much less on individuals than State and Federal law. International law generally focuses on entire states or on oppressive and violent governments.

International laws have been established in order to govern the way in which states and countries interact with each other. In recent decades, international laws have begun to focus on the apprehension and the punishment of dangerous individuals. In most cases, the creation of international laws falls to the United Nations. However, international law is often very difficult to enforce because international relations criticize violating the rights of a sovereign state.

Each country is responsible for governing its own territory and in most cases it is not considered to be acceptable to interfere with the way in which a government chooses to manage its own country. Interfering with the governing of a sovereign state may lead to a war between countries. 

However, there are some instances when the necessity for international laws is very apparent. On occasion, a country will take it upon itself to enforce international law if it feels that international security relies on the apprehension of an individual or a government that is posing a threat to the safety of other states.

In general, international laws are related to crimes against humanity. Usually, crimes against humanity are committed by a government or a regime. The occurrence of these crimes are not isolated incidents. Instead this heinous behavior is symptomatic of the way a government chooses to function. Crimes against humanity include actions such as torture, homicide, and rape.

Throughout the history of capital punishment, juvenile death penalty has been a topic of a great deal of debate and argument. Since capital punishment began being practiced in the American colonies in the 1600s, over 350 individuals who were under the age of eighteen at the time that the crime in question was committed have been executed. 

 

 

Despite the fact that numerous states have banned the execution of individuals who were minors at the time of the crime, over twenty individuals have been executed for juvenile capital offenses since the death penalty was reestablished in 1976.

 

 

There are many states that argued against the execution of juvenile offenders, claiming that minors are not as educated or experienced as adults. Therefore, they do not possess the knowledge and the cognitive function to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They are also much more likely to give in to peer pressure or to act as a result of strong emotions. They will often act before evaluating the effects that their actions will have.

 

 

Individuals who were not for the death penalty for juvenile offenders claimed that because of their frequent irresponsible behavior, minors are not given the same rights and responsibilities as adults. They cannot be trusted to effectively handle these rights and responsibilities. Therefore, it is ludicrous to impose the same sentence on minors who have committed a capital offense that is imposed on adults who are sentenced to execution.

 

 

The debate regarding juvenile death penalty practices was resolved when the Supreme Court ruled against the execution of juvenile offenders. However, this subject continues to be a topic of concern on an international level

One subject that is often the topic of argument, not only by the public but also within the Supreme Court, is the practice of imposing a life sentence on a juvenile. It is possible for a juvenile to receive a life sentence without the prospect of being granted parole upon these individuals.

 

 

As noted, this topic has sparked a great deal of debate within the Supreme Court, especially surrounding the cases of Joe Sullivan and Terrance Graham. Joe Sullivan was 13 when he was convicted of raping an elderly woman in Florida. In Florida, this crime is punishable by a life sentence and Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison with no potential for parole. Graham received a life sentence as a result of an aggressive burglary that occurred while he was out on parole for a previous crime.

 

 

The Supreme Court continues to debate the Constitutionality of taking a child's entire life away from them and telling them that they have no chance at any future. A child may develop into a completely different person as an adult. Therefore, many advocates consider it to be extremely harsh to sentence a minor to life in prison without parole, especially when the crime did not involve murder.

One of the less frequently utilized criminal defenses is the defense of entrapment. Entrapment cases are extremely difficult to prove and are often problematic and complex. Entrapment occurs when a Government agent or an officer of the law coerces another person into committing a criminal act. These agents are usually police officers.

In order for the entrapment defense to be effective, a defense attorney must not only prove that a Government official convinced the defendant to take part in the crime, but also that the offender would have been very unlikely to partake in the criminal behavior without his or her persuasion. 

In the large majority of entrapment cases, the Government agent that is responsible for this coercion is an individual who is looking for a scapegoat for a crime that they are planning to commit. They may utilize their position and take advantage of their power in order to gain necessary information and resources to commit the crime that they are plotting.

Entrapment will occur when this Government official convinces an innocent individual to commit a crime. The agent may attempt to make the crime appear very attractive to the offender by guaranteeing that they will receive copious amounts of money or by claiming that the activity is legal. A Government official may be charged with entrapment if they have developed and implanted an imperative or pressing motive in the mind of the offender.

For example, if the agent has formed a strong bond of friendship with the defendant and has caused the defendant to believe that partaking in a crime will greatly improve the agent’s situation, then the defendant may choose to partake in the criminal activity in order to benefit their friend instead of for personal benefit or gain. This type of behavior on the part of police officers may constitute entrapment cases. Entrapment cases may also ensue if a police officer pressures an individual into partaking in a crime through the use of force or threats of violence.

In many entrapment cases, a defendant is being tried for a crime because a Government official was resolved to frame an innocent individual for criminal activity. This may result from planting evidence that causes the defendant to appear guilty of the crime in question. There are many different ways that entrapment may occur, but it is essential that the defense attorney be able to prove that the defendant would not have taken part in the activity without the coercion of the Government agent.

Utilizing undercover agents that pose as drug dealers is not considered to be a form of entrapment. Therefore, if an individual purchases drugs from an undercover cop or if they sell drugs to an undercover cop, the entrapment defense will not be successful in negating their criminal liability. The Government official must not only provide the defendant with the opportunity to take part in criminal activity, but must play an active role in coercing the defendant and convincing them to take part in illegal behavior.

The criminal defense of outrageous government conduct is often confused with the defense of entrapment. Government conduct is rarely an effective defense for criminal activity, but there have been a few cases in which a court overturned an initial conviction due to the misconduct of police during a criminal investigation.

For example, in the 1978 Supreme Court case, People v. Isaacson, the New York State Police abused a young man named J.D. Breniman until he had answered their questions and admitted to extensive drug use. The police then coerced him into acting as an informant and made him believe that he would receive a lighter sentence if he helped them to apprehend other drug dealers. 

Breniman phoned a friend and informed him of his dire situation and the need to find drugs that he could sell in order to raise the money that he needed for a defense attorney. The defendant, who was a graduate student in Pennsylvania, agreed to try to help his struggling friend. He had committed no prior drug offenses and he had very little experience using illegal substances. 

Breniman convinced the defendant to meet him in New York State in order to make the exchange, where the defendant was apprehended by police. The defendant was then charged with the sale of illegal drugs and was sentenced to incarceration. 

In this case, the Supreme Court found the behavior of the New York State police to be outrageous and unfair. Therefore, the original ruling was overturned and the defendant was acquitted of the charges

The application of criminal law has many different goals and conflicting purposes. As such, criminal sentencing and incarceration have many pros and cons. The intent and the purpose of criminal sentencing also vary a great deal. Often, the function of criminal law varies from one case to the next, and each case may contain its own conflicting purposes for punishments and penalties. 

 

 

Because of these conflicting purposes, punishments often differ to a large degree from one defendant to another, even though the crime committed may be the same.

 

 

Often, penalties are disproportional with one focus on deterrence and rehabilitation. Non-utilitarian punishments, meanwhile, often focus on retribution. According to the doctrine of retribution, an individual who has committed a crime by violating criminal law must be punished for their actions. 

 

 

The sentence that they receive should fit the crime that they have committed so that justice is effectively served. If an individual is responsible for inflicting harm upon another person, then they should be punished so that they too experience the pain that they have caused another individual. In order for justice to be served an offender must be sentenced to a punishment that fits the crime, but not a penalty that is unusually cruel.

 

 

Because there are two different schools of thought regarding the purpose of punishments, there is often controversy and argument surrounding the use of disproportional punishments. Many people feel that the use of disproportional punishments are wrong because individuals are receiving punishments that are much more severe than the crimes that have been committed. Also, disproportional punishments do not maintain the severity of crimes in relation to other crimes. 

 

 

However, people who support utilitarian punishments argue that disproportional punishments are necessary for deterring individuals from committing crime. While proportional punishments may be successful for retribution, they do little to deter criminals and decrease crime rates.

Life sentences are among the most severe punishments that courts can impose on offenders in criminal cases. They are often given to those found guilty of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, and are intended to ensure that they spend the rest of their lives behind bars. However, there is another type of life sentence that is becoming increasingly common in recent years – consecutive life sentences. In this article, we will take a closer look at the definition of consecutive life sentences, and examine some recent popular cases where they have been applied.

What are Consecutive Life Sentences?

A consecutive life sentence is a sentencing option available to courts in some jurisdictions where a defendant is found guilty of multiple offenses that are punishable by life sentences. When a judge determines that the offender deserves more than one life sentence, they may choose to sentence them to consecutive life sentences. In this context, “consecutive” means that the offender must serve each of the life sentences one after another, rather than concurrently.

It is important to note that not all jurisdictions allow for consecutive life sentences and that the specifics of the law vary depending on where the case is being tried. In some states, such as Louisiana and California, mandatory life without parole is a possible sentence for certain crimes, so the use of consecutive life sentences is not as common there. In other jurisdictions, such as Texas and Oklahoma, consecutive life sentences are more prevalent.

Recent Cases

1. Ariel Castro Case

One of the most significant recent cases where consecutive life sentences were applied was the Ariel Castro case. Castro was a former Cleveland school bus driver who kidnapped three young women – Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry, and Gina DeJesus – and held them captive in his home for over a decade. During this time, he repeatedly raped and assaulted the women and forced them to endure horrific living conditions. In 2013, Castro was arrested after one of the women, Amanda Berry, managed to escape and alert the authorities.

Many people question the purpose and the necessity of handing a convict a consecutive life sentence. The term “life imprisonment” implies that a criminal will spend the rest of their life behind bars. As long as they are living, a convict who has been sentenced to life imprisonment will remain captive in a prison cell in order to keep the public safe from any harm that they may present to society.

Therefore, a consecutive life sentence seems unnecessarily redundant. Individuals often wonder as to how a criminal can serve more then one sentence of life imprisonment when the term “life sentence” indicates that a criminal will remain in prison until they die.

In order to understand why judges condemn a criminal to a consecutive life sentence it is important to understand the nature of life imprisonment. A consecutive life sentence occurs when a convict is required to complete a second life sentence after the first life sentence has been concluded. This may seem absurd, but reviewing the information and statistics related to life imprisonment will help an individual to understand the necessity of a consecutive life sentence.

The term “life imprisonment” is often misleading and deceptive. Contrary to popular belief, a life sentence does not necessarily mean that a criminal will spend the rest of their life in jail. When a judge condemns a convict to a life sentence, he/she will also determine whether or not the prisoner will be eligible for parolewithout chance of release.

However, in many instances, a convict will be granted the possibility of receiving parole. Some states, such as Alaska and New Mexico, prohibit a criminal from being sentenced to life without the chance of release. Therefore, it is possible for a murderer to once again walk the streets and pose a threat to individuals in the community. A consecutive life sentence will help to ensure that a dangerous criminal remains behind bars.

In most cases, life imprisonment means that a criminal must serve between fifteen to twenty years of their sentence before they will be considered for parole. If a criminal was handed a consecutive life sentence, then they will need to complete another twenty years before they are eligible for release, making it a total of forty years served before the convict will be considered for parole. Condemning a prisoner to multiple life sentences will ensure that the offenders are not considered for parole and are not released into the community.

In general, an offender will be handed a life sentence for each crime that they have committed that warrants life in prison. Therefore, if a perpetrator is responsible for murdering three people, then the offender may receive three life sentences. Many people believe that giving a convict multiple life sentences helps to console the victim’s family members because the offender has received a punishment for each specific crime that they have committed. In this respect, multiple life sentences are often extremely beneficial and reassuring.

It is possible for a convict to appeal their sentence. If one of the life sentences is overturned during the appeal process, then other life sentences have been passed in order to ensure that the criminal spends a long time in prison. A consecutive life sentence also accentuates the extent and the severity of the crimes that the offender committed.