How Criminal Defenses and Punishments can be Improved for Future Generations

Criminal Defense and Criminal Punishment
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Criminal Defense and Criminal Punishment
Introduction
There are several conditions in the field of criminal law that tend to negate some facts of a crime, especially the intent element which is known as defenses. The label defenses may be appropriate in jurisdictions where the accused is assigned some responsibilities or burden before they appear in a tribunal. However, in some jurisdictions, the burden of trying to prove a crime is usually left to the government, and in this case, the government is expected to prove the absence of defenses in case they are implicated (Cole & DeJong, 2018). In a nutshell, in most jurisdictions, the absence of defenses is usually treated to be an element of the crime. Therefore, the defenses can offer partial or total protection from punishment (Obasogie, 2017). There are various types of defenses they include Automatism, mental disorder, intoxication, and lesser harm/necessity, mistake of facts, duress, self-defense, impossibility defense, and legal duty.
On the other hand, punishment can be regarded as the imposition of an unpleasant or undesirable outcome on an individual dispensed by an authority in various contexts, including child discipline and criminal law as a deterrent and response to a certain behavior or action that is considered to be unacceptable or undesirable (Cole & DeJong, 2018). The purpose of punishment could range from conditioning a child to keep off self-enlargement, to imposing some social conformity to protect against future impending harms and defending norms. Besides, punishment ensures that the law is maintained and people respect and honor the rule of law. The undesirable imposition may be a penalty, fine, confinement, and sanctions. This paper will explore both criminal defenses as well as criminal justice and conclusively determine how they can be improved for future generations.
Points in Court Determining Lawfulness of Use of Force
Law enforcement are accorded authority which permits them to use force while accomplishing lawful actions and objectives such as arresting, detention and entry to give a warrant. This element is authorized and determined any some measures that were developed in the case of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S 386 (1989) by the Supreme Court (Obasogie, 2017). During this case, the court issued a directive that all lower courts should ask three questions which are related to measuring the lawfulness of certain application by use of force. The first question was, what is the severity of the crime that law enforcer deem that the suspect has been committing or has just committed. Secondly, was the defender in a position to present a prompt threat to the public and officers' safety, thirdly, was the suspect refusing to cooperate with officers during the arrest.
The level of objectivity which is inherent in the seriousness of the offense that the officer believes that the suspect has been committing or has already committed is that some offenses are opposing and it is the only force that can be used to stop them from causing more harm. The sole objective of allowing police to intervene and use force in such a situation is to ensure the i...