Analysis of Criminal Defenses: Categories and Circumstances Report

This report provides an overview of criminal defenses, categorizing them into justification, alibi, excuse, and procedural defenses. It examines the circumstances under which each defense is invoked, including self-protection, residence defense, and the role of an alibi in establishing the defendant's absence from the crime scene. The report discusses the importance of these defenses in balancing the power within the justice system and ensuring fair treatment for defendants. It also highlights the significance of procedural defenses, such as double jeopardy and prosecutorial misconduct, and how they can impact the outcome of a trial. References from legal scholars are included to support the analysis.

Running head: REPORT 0
INTRODUCTION OF
CRIMINOLOGY AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
STUDENT DETAILS:

REPORT 1
Introduction
There are various criminal defenses, which can be invoked by defendants. The law
implement agencies and government prosecutors have wide resources at their exclusion.
Without proper securities for the defendant, the balance of power within the justice system
will become twisted in support of the government. Similarly, reasonable dealing for criminal
defendants regularly depends as much upon the talent of their defense solicitor as it does the
essential securities confined in the law. In the following parts, categories of criminal defenses
and its circumstances are discussed and examined.
Categories of criminal defenses and its circumstances-
There are four types of criminal defenses, which are identified by the legal system
such as justification, alibi, excuse, and procedural. An alibi has statement or disagreement by
the personal charged with the crime that they were so distant when the crime was committed,
or so engaged in other unarguable actions, that their involvement in the charge of that crime
was not possible (Diamond, 2018). The justification is the permissible defense, where the
offender accepts to conducting the action in question but claims this was very essential to
evade hurt to himself or herself or others. Normally used justification involves self-
protection, residence defense, property defense, requirement, approval, and resisting illegal
custody (Chen, 2018). Further, an excuse refers to a legal defense, where the offenders
entitlement that some personal situation or circumstance at time of action was such that they
must not be held responsible as per the rules and regulations. Excuse defenses identified by
the justice system include force, time of life, fault, involuntary intemperance, insentience,
hassle, foolishness, reduced ability, and mental inability. Furthermore, it was claimed by
procedural defenses that the offender was in some important manner distinguished in the
against of justice procedure or some significant feature of official procedure was not
appropriately followed in the enquiry or trial of the accused crime.
Usually raised procedural defenses involve setup, double risk, rejection of a rapid
trial, prosecutorial misbehavior, and police scam (Westphal & Loftin, 2017). An alibi, in case
represented to be legal, means that the offenders might not have conducted the crime in
question because they were not present at the time of conducting the crime. When the
offenders offer a reasoning as a defense, they accept conducting the action in question but
entitlements that it was required to evade some great foul. (Liu & Halliday, 2016).
Conclusion
As per the above analysis, it is concluded that various categories of criminal defenses have
been identified by legal system. “Failure of evidences” defenses are an exclusion to the rule.
They are not actually defenses but slightly opinions that the trial has not met the burden of
proof of an element of a crime. An absolute type of defenses is extrinsic defenses. The
defense does not defy the wrongfulness, or guilt of behavior of performer. Somewhat, they
rely upon some element extrinsic to crime bars principle, or even trial.

REPORT 2
References
Chen, J. (2018). Criminal Defense in China: The Politics of Lawyers at Work Sida Liu and
Terence C. Halliday Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016
xix+ 200 pp.£ 18.99 ISBN 978-1-316-61484-6. The China Quarterly, 235(2), 882-
884.
Diamond, J. D. (2018). practicing indian law in federal, state, and tribal criminal courts: an
update about recent expansion of criminal jurisdiction over non-indians. Criminal
Justice, 32(4), 8-12.
Liu, S., & Halliday, T. C. (2016). Criminal defense in China: the politics of lawyers at Work.
Cambridge University Press.
Westphal, A. R., & Loftin, R. (2017). Autism Spectrum Disorder and Criminal
Defense. Psychiatric Annals, 47(12), 584-587.