Answer:
A. Fails to distinguish between violent defendants and one that no longer pose a danger to society.
C. Fails to differentiate between mental illness that are temporary or lifelong conditions.
Explanation:
M'Naghten Rule is an insanity defense used by defendant's attorney to plead defendant not guilty of crime due to mental conditions suffered during the time crime committed.
M'Naghten Rule states that a defendant will be pleaded not guilty only under conditions when it will be proved that the mental condition of defendant was not right at the time when crime was committed and that he/she was not able to discern his/her actions as right or wrong.
The criticism received to the M'Naghten rule is that it fails to distinguish between defendants who pose threat to the society and those who do not pose threat any longer. Another criticism is that it fails to distinguish between mental illness that are temporary or conditions which are lifelong.
Therefore, option A and C are correct.
The point in the criminal justice process the whistle-blowing would have occurred is called the count bargaining.
There are also other three different types of plea bargaining, which are the charge bargaining, the sentence bargaining, and the facto bargaining.
<h3 /><h3>What is count bargaining?</h3>
Corresponds to a negotiation where the confession is related to the count bargain, that is, when the suspicions are not recognized the prosecutor can ignore the guilt in suspicions of a confession.
This occurs through the defendant alleging only one of the original charges, the others then being dropped. An example of a count bargain occurs when a prosecution accuses an individual of assault and theft, and the parties decide that the defendant will plead only guilt on the assault charge, so the prosecution will ignore the defendant's guilt on the theft charge.
Therefore, the count bargaining is a process of fairness that the allegation is in respect of the accused of the allegations, being a form of negotiaton.
Find out more about count bargaining here:
brainly.com/question/11819753
#SPJ1
Answer:
wheres the answer choices?
Explanation:
Answer:
A good lawyer might get Belva off with a manslaughter charge. What she did was pre-meditated but she didn't intend to kill Fast Eddie. Just his car. Like most bad plans, she hadn't considered the possibility of unintended consequences. A good prosecutor could probably put her away for a long time. She definitely pursued Fast Eddie with intentions of doing harm. Killing him might not have been the plan, but that's what the plan ultimately resulted in.
Explanation:
