1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
emmasim [6.3K]
3 years ago
13

Do you think defendants should have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted? Or do you think a lesser burde

n of proof, like the preponderance of evidence in needed in civil cases, is more appropriate? Explain your reasoning.
Law
1 answer:
mixer [17]3 years ago
6 0

I believe that defendants should be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt to be convicted. Here's why.

There are a lot of false criminal accusations going around, where an innocent person gets charged with a large crime.

In these cases, there is no evidence, no witnesses, just 2 people sharing different stories, one of which is false. Yet, the defendant, who is telling the truth about being innocent, gets found guilty.

This happens more so in juvenile cases, due to the fact that there is no jury in juvenile courts.

Imagine a 12-13 year old getting charged with murder, and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever, but the judge finds them guilty, convicts them, and locks them up for 4 years. Imagine how that would affect their life.

Innocent people are suffering because they get convicted with no reasoning.

This is why I believe they need to  be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted.

I hope this helps, and have a nice day!

You might be interested in
The law of mass action states that _____. Select all the options that complete the sentence correctly.
notka56 [123]

Answer: a chemical system reaches a state where the concentrations of reactants and products is a constant ratioequilibrium can be reached from any direction, i.e., by beginning with a mixture of reactants or products, or both

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
If your former employee has filed a lawsuit against you for terminating his employment, you are the:
coldgirl [10]

Answer:

im not 100% sure im understanding the question correctly but go gonna go with you are the employer. :)

4 0
2 years ago
WILL MARK BRAINLIEST!!! 100 POINTS!!! For this project, you have the opportunity to be the author and write brief newspaper arti
LUCKY_DIMON [66]

Answer:

Manufacturers are used to defending strict product liability actions when plaintiffs claim that their products are defective. But in the opioid litigation, plaintiffs have filed something else: more than 2,500 public nuisance cases so far.

Governmental entities across the country are filing suits alleging that opioid manufacturers deceptively marketed their legal, opioid-based pain medications to understate the medication’s addictive qualities and to overstate its effectiveness in treating pain. In addition, plaintiffs allege that opioid distributors failed to properly monitor how frequently the medication was prescribed and failed to stop filling prescription orders from known “pill mills.” The complaints claim that manufacturer defendants’ deceptive marketing schemes and distributor defendants’ failure to monitor led more people to become addicted to painkillers, which led to people turning to illegal opioids. The legal argument here is that the defendants’ actions in concert interfered with an alleged public right against unwarranted illness and addition. But is public nuisance law likely to be a successful avenue for prosecuting these types of mass tort claims? It has not been in the past.

This is the first of two posts that will address how plaintiffs have historically used public nuisance law to prosecute mass tort claims and how the plaintiffs in the current opioid litigation may fare.

Overview of Public Nuisance Law

In most states, a public nuisance is “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[1] This definition is often broken down into four elements: (1) the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused (2) an unreasonable interference (3) with a right common to the general public (4) that is abatable.

Courts have interpreted these elements in different ways. For example, courts in Rhode Island and California have disagreed about when a public nuisance is abatable: the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that this element is satisfied only if the defendant had control over what caused the nuisance when the injury occurred, while the a California Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff need not prove this element at all.[2] And while the federal district court in Ohio handling the opioid multidistrict litigation (MDL) has held that the right to be free from unwarranted addiction is a public right,[3] the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the right to be “free from unreasonable jeopardy to health” is a private right and cannot be the basis of a public nuisance claim.[4]

Roots of Public Nuisance Law in Mass Tort Cases

Plaintiffs litigating mass tort cases have turned to public nuisance law over the past decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to use it to hold asbestos manufacturers liable.[5] In one case, plaintiffs alleged that defendants created a nuisance by producing an asbestos-laced product that caused major health repercussions for a portion of the population. Plaintiffs argued that North Dakota nuisance law did not require defendants to have the asbestos-laced products within their control when the injury to the consumer occurred. Explicitly rejecting this theory, the Eighth Circuit held that North Dakota nuisance law required the defendant to have control over the product and found that defendant in the case before it did not have control over the asbestos-laced products because when the injury occurred, the products had already been distributed to consumers. The Eighth Circuit warned that broadening nuisance law to encompass these claims “would in effect totally rewrite” tort law, morphing nuisance law into “a monster that would devour in one gulp the entire law of tort.”[6]

3 0
2 years ago
How does the concept of strict product liability apply to this situation?
masha68 [24]
Strict Liability: Strict liability is where even if a product was safely designed, was properly manufactured, and contained an appropriate warning, a manufacturer or retailer of a product may be liable for injuries resulting from use of the product simply because the product caused those injuries.
8 0
3 years ago
1. What are some similarities between the JonBenet Ramsey Case and the Lizzie Borden case?
Lelu [443]

Answer:

Both were shocking murders sensationalized by the media, ensuring the cases would be well known outside of Fall River and Boulder, and over time. Both remain unsolved, with theories involving different perpetrators. Andrew and Abby were murdered in their home with two other members of the house known to be present, Lizzie and the maid, Bridget Sullivan. Like the Ramseys, Lizzie has been thought to be guilty by a majority of people. And like the Ramseys, an unknown intruder has been offered as a defense.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • NOBODY <br>-----------------<br> LAW<br>can you guess the word
    9·1 answer
  • How do you think the right to veto rules or laws helped the<br> common people of Rome?
    13·1 answer
  • Describe some alternative means for deciding questions of representation.
    14·1 answer
  • What are some potential problems or risks of relying on the information provided by anonymous 9-1-1 callers to serve as proof of
    14·1 answer
  • How does the qualified business income (QBI) deduction apply to a pass-through entity?
    7·1 answer
  • Quá độ lên chủ nghĩa xã hội bỏ qua tư bản chủ nghĩa.
    10·1 answer
  • Need help ASAP ! I’ll give you a heart
    14·2 answers
  • Why does the executive office of the president include press and communications staff?
    7·2 answers
  • Vận dụng cặp phạm trù nguyên nhân và kết quả trong giả quyết tai nạn giao thông
    6·1 answer
  • In what way does each branch of government check the act of each other?
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!