Domestic violence is the standard used for insanity defense to produce good result and Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a change but never changing anything is the standard used for least use of insanity defense.
Explanation:
The advantage of insanity defense is that the accused could avoid penalized with death, even if he is guilty. In the context of crime the sentence is very convenient as compared with an accused who is proven to be guilty, but it is not proven.
The insanity defense is rarely used because of the difficulty in providing legal insanity. Many criminal defendants suffer from mental illness and produce evidence of this illness such as psychiatric testimony.
Hence, Domestic violence is the standard used for insanity defense to produce good result because it changes person completely and Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a change but never changing anything is the standard used for least use of insanity defense.
I think its the second one
A peremptory challenge is used by attorneys in the jury selection process to excuse potential jurors without providing a reason why. In this lesson you will learn about the use of peremptory strikes, as well as the laws designed to protect the integrity of the process.
While the process of selecting jurors may be too boring to be featured in popular T.V. crime dramas, any seasoned trial attorney will tell you that a trial can be lost or won in jury selection. So, what exactly makes the process so important? And how do attorneys pick the 'best' jury for each case?
The jury selection process, also know as 'voir dire', involves attorneys from each side taking turns picking the jurors they believe will favor their position over their opponent's. The term peremptory challenge refers to the practice of excusing potential jurors without providing a reason why. Jurors may also be excluded because the attorneys and the judge believe that the juror, for whatever reason, can't be fair. This is called a 'for cause' challenge.
It comes from the Latin word "forensis" pertaining to a forum. ... The meaning of "forensic" later came to be restricted to refer to the courts of law. The word entered English usage in 1659.
Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
