Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, [1] and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on " cruel and unusual punishments ".
Aggravation, in law, is "any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself".
R v De Simoni is a decision of the High Court of Australia.. The case is notable for the 'De Simoni principle', a doctrine that applies to criminal sentencing law. The rule 'bars sentencing judges from relying on facts that would amount to a more serious crime than the one the offender had been convicted of'. [1]
This provides the accused an opportunity to place his antecedents, social and economic background and mitigating and extenuating circumstances before the court. Besides the statutory provisions, the Constitution of India also empowers the President and the Governor of the State to grant pardon to the condemned offenders in appropriate cases.
In law, attendant circumstances (sometimes external circumstances) are the facts surrounding an event. In criminal law in the United States , the definition of a given offense generally includes up to three kinds of "elements": the actus reus , or guilty conduct; the mens rea , or guilty mental state; and the attendant (sometimes "external ...
Clausula rebus sic stantibus comes from Latin (where rebus sic stantibus is Latin for "with things thus standing" or, more idiomatically, "as things stand").. A key figure in the formulation of clausula rebus sic stantibus was the Italian jurist Scipione Gentili (1563–1616), who is generally credited for coining the maxim omnis conventio intelligitur rebus sic stantibus ('every convention is ...
Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that the "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" standard for the application of the death penalty as defined by the Eighth Amendment was too vague. [1]
In the context of the law of attempts, the Crown Prosecution Service advises that "where the evidence demonstrates that the suspect intended to cause an injury that is substantially more serious than that (if any) which was in fact caused, prosecutors should consider the circumstances of the case as a whole as well as the relevant sentencing ...