Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 ...
The Court ruled 5–4 that the state appellate court may reweigh the aggravating and mitigating factors. [4] References This page was last edited on 27 ...
If working as a consultant, a forensic psychologist can be involved in legal proceedings through responsibilities such as reviewing court records (such as a defendant's psychosocial history or assessing mitigating or aggravating factors in a case), serving as a jury consultant (organizing focus groups, shadow juries, mock juries, or helping ...
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 ...
The Enmund/Tison finding is not a substantive limit on the definition of a crime, and neither were aggravating factors. Accordingly, the Sixth Amendment did not require a jury to pass on aggravating factors. Justice Scalia concurred in this part of the holding in Walton. It would be another eight years before he would first express his view ...
Under California's Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL), the authorized sentences for this crime are either 6, 12, or 16 years. Under the DSL, the judge must conclude first, that there are aggravating facts, and second, that the aggravating facts outweigh any mitigating factors, before imposing the high term. In this case, at a post-trial hearing ...