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 ...
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 ...
Aggravated assault, for example, is usually differentiated from simple assault by the offender's intent (e.g., to murder or to rape), the extent of injury to the victim, or the use of a deadly weapon. An aggravating circumstance is a kind of attendant circumstance and the opposite of an extenuating or mitigating circumstance, which decreases guilt.
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) – A death sentence where the necessary aggravating factors are determined by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury, as the jury should determine if there are such factors sufficient to allow the death penalty. Hurst v.
Second Degree Murder if aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating factors Life (minimum of any number of years, but not less than 20 years, only an option for anyone under 18) or life without parole First Degree Murder if mitigating factors outweigh any aggravating factors Life (minimum of 15–35 years) First Degree Murder
The attitude of a legal system to intoxicating substances can affect the applicability of intoxication as a defense under its laws: a system strongly opposed to a substance may even view intoxication as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one. [1] The effect of intoxication on criminal responsibility varies by jurisdiction and offense.
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld two important aspects of the capital sentencing scheme in Arizona—judicial sentencing and the aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved"—as not unconstitutionally vague.
This scheme is called a non-weighing scheme, because the sentencer is not required to weigh the statutory aggravating factors against mitigating evidence before imposing a death sentence. [ e ] The Court found that, because of the jury's finding at least one aggravating factor was a prerequisite for imposing the death penalty, Georgia's scheme ...