Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Sentencing Council of England and Wales lists the following as possible mitigating factors: [2] Admitting the offense, such as through a guilty plea; Mental illness; Provocation; Young age; Showing remorse; Self-defense is a legal defense rather than a mitigating factor, as an act done in justified self-defense is not deemed to be a crime ...
An aggravating circumstance is a kind of attendant circumstance and the opposite of an extenuating or mitigating circumstance, ... Mitigating factor
Aggravating factors must be found by a jury. [17] Aggravating factors cannot be vague. [18] The sentencing decision-maker must have the authority to consider all mitigating factors. [19] Fourth, the Clause requires certain additional procedural rules in capital cases. For example, the jury must be permitted to consider a lesser included offense ...
Permitted comparison of mitigating and aggravating factors to decide death penalty decisions. [3] See also Furman v. Georgia (1972), and Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 1st 1986 Ford v. Wainwright: Preventing the execution [capital punishment] of the insane, requiring an evaluation of competency and an evidentiary hearing 8th 1989 Penry v. Lynaugh
Mitigating factors, including things not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication [4] and partial defenses such as diminished capacity and provocation, are used more frequently. The defense is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction.
This involves assessing the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence. Courts can take into account any fact considered relevant as aggravating or mitigating, [10] and many are set out in sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Act sets out a number of statutory aggravating factors including:
Indeed, the victim in this instance being a police officer would probably be considered an aggravating circumstance and increase the penalty for the crime. (When verification of an attendant circumstance decreases the penalty, it is known as a mitigating or extenuating circumstance.)
The DSL required judges to impose the middle term unless aggravating factors were found to exist, and those aggravating factors by definition did not include any element of the crime. Thus, the maximum sentence the judge could impose based solely on the jury's findings was the middle term, not the high term. Nevertheless, in People v.