Law And Justice Final Exam
-
- proportionate punishment, acceptable response to crime
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
The 'Law and Justice Final Exam' assesses understanding of key legal concepts, focusing on the insanity defense, historical legal standards, and criticism of legal practices. It evaluates critical thinking and application of legal principles in criminal law.
(91).webp "Law And Justice Final Exam - Quiz")
Quiz Preview
- 2.
State of Mind
-
Mens rea
-
Actus rea
Correct Answer
A. Mens reaExplanation
"Mens rea" refers to the mental state or intention of a person while committing a crime. It is an essential element in determining criminal liability as it establishes the individual's guilty mind. On the other hand, "actus rea" refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes a crime. In this context, the correct answer "mens rea" indicates that the question is likely asking about the mental state or intention involved in a particular situation or legal concept.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Require statement that “guidelines do not adequately represent severity of defendant’s defense or likelihood of recidivism
-
Aggravating
-
Mitigating
Correct Answer
A. AggravatingExplanation
The given correct answer suggests that the guidelines in question do not accurately reflect the severity of the defendant's defense or the likelihood of them reoffending. This implies that the guidelines may not take into account important factors that could either aggravate or mitigate the defendant's situation. Without considering these factors, the guidelines may not provide a fair and accurate assessment of the defendant's case.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
Policeman at the Elbow Test
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. Irresistible Impulse TestExplanation
The Irresistible Impulse Test is the correct answer because it is a legal standard used to determine if a defendant's mental state at the time of the crime prevented them from controlling their actions. This test focuses on whether the defendant had the ability to control their behavior due to a mental illness or defect. If the defendant can prove that they had an irresistible impulse to commit the crime and could not control their actions, they may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. This test is one of several used in criminal law to evaluate a defendant's mental state and culpability.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
- attempt to change or approve inmate for his benefit or society’s
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. RehabilitationExplanation
Rehabilitation refers to the attempt to change or improve an inmate for his benefit or society's. This approach focuses on providing education, therapy, and skills training to help inmates reintegrate into society and lead a productive life after their release. The goal is to address the root causes of criminal behavior and provide the necessary support and resources to prevent reoffending. By offering opportunities for personal growth and development, rehabilitation aims to reduce recidivism rates and promote positive change in individuals.Rate this question:
- 6.
Most common sentencing departure
-
Aggravating
-
Mitigating
Correct Answer
A. MitigatingExplanation
The correct answer is "mitigating." In the context of sentencing, aggravating factors are circumstances that make the offense more serious, while mitigating factors are circumstances that make the offense less serious. The question asks for the most common sentencing departure, implying that mitigating factors are more frequently considered in reducing a sentence than aggravating factors.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
Jonathan Rowe, who believes that the insanity defense should be abolished, argues that the insanity defense is an important issue because
-
It is used frequently.
-
It is used in highly publicized cases involving serious crimes.
-
It is used by wealthy defendants.
-
None of the above
Correct Answer
A. It is used in highly publicized cases involving serious crimes.Explanation
The correct answer is "it is used in highly publicized cases involving serious crimes." This is because Jonathan Rowe believes that the insanity defense is an important issue due to its association with high-profile cases that involve serious crimes. He may argue that these cases attract significant media attention and public scrutiny, thus highlighting the need to examine and potentially abolish the insanity defense. The frequency of its use or the involvement of wealthy defendants may not be the primary focus of Rowe's argument.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Adopted by Alaska in 1975
-
Complete ban on plea bargaining
-
Jury Waiver Bargaining
-
Ban after indictment
-
Plea Bargaining Cut-Off
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Complete ban on plea bargainingExplanation
The correct answer is "Complete ban on plea bargaining." This means that Alaska, in 1975, implemented a policy that completely prohibits the practice of plea bargaining in their criminal justice system. Plea bargaining is a negotiation between the prosecution and the defense, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a reduced sentence or other concessions. However, in Alaska, this practice is not allowed, and defendants cannot enter into any plea agreements.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
- punishments severe enough that costs outweigh benefits
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. DeterrenceExplanation
Deterrence refers to the use of punishments severe enough that the costs outweigh the benefits, in order to discourage individuals from committing crimes. This approach aims to prevent future crimes by creating a fear of punishment and consequences. By making the potential costs of committing a crime higher than the perceived benefits, individuals are deterred from engaging in criminal behavior. This approach focuses on the rational decision-making process of individuals and aims to influence their behavior by manipulating the potential outcomes.Rate this question:
- 10.
Strict Sentencing considers
-
Mens rea
-
Actus rea
Correct Answer
A. Actus reaExplanation
Strict sentencing considers actus rea, which refers to the guilty act or the physical act committed by an individual. It focuses on the external behavior of the person rather than their intentions or state of mind (mens rea). This means that under strict sentencing, the severity of punishment is determined based on the actions and consequences of the individual's behavior, regardless of their intentions.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Justice system is modeled on exacting
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. RetributionExplanation
The justice system is modeled on retribution, which means that it seeks to impose punishment on offenders as a form of revenge or payback for their crimes. This approach focuses on the idea that offenders should suffer and be held accountable for their actions, serving as a deterrent to potential criminals and satisfying society's need for justice. It does not prioritize rehabilitation or incapacitation, which aim to reform or remove offenders from society, respectively.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
- punishment separates individual from society to protect society
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. IncapacitationExplanation
Incapacitation is the correct answer because it involves removing individuals from society in order to protect society from potential harm. This can be achieved through imprisonment or other forms of confinement that prevent individuals from committing further crimes. By incapacitating individuals, society is kept safe from their potential dangerous actions, making it a suitable explanation for the given statement.Rate this question:
- 13.
The McNaughtan Rule was first pronounced by:
-
Fifteen judges summoned by the House of Lords
-
Judge David Bazelon of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
-
C.R. Jefffrey in Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease
-
American Law Institute in the Model Penal Code
-
None of the above
Correct Answer
A. Fifteen judges summoned by the House of LordsExplanation
The McNaughtan Rule was first pronounced by fifteen judges summoned by the House of Lords.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
Adopted by Alaska in 1975
-
Complete ban on plea bargaining
-
Jury Waiver Bargaining
-
Ban after indictment
-
Plea Bargaining Cut-Off
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Complete ban on plea bargainingExplanation
The correct answer is "Complete ban on plea bargaining." This means that in Alaska, plea bargaining is not allowed at all. Plea bargaining is a negotiation process between the prosecution and the defense where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge or a more lenient sentence. However, in Alaska, this practice is completely prohibited, meaning that defendants cannot negotiate their charges or sentences through plea bargaining.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
Attemmpt at consolidation
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. ALI’s “Model Penal Code”Explanation
The correct answer is ALI's "Model Penal Code". The ALI's "Model Penal Code" is a comprehensive criminal code that was developed by the American Law Institute (ALI) in the 1960s. It provides a standardized set of principles and definitions for criminal law, including provisions for various tests of criminal responsibility. The other options mentioned in the question, such as the Irresistible Impulse Test, M'Naughten Test, and Durham Test, are specific tests used to determine criminal responsibility in certain jurisdictions, but they are not as widely recognized or used as the ALI's Model Penal Code.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
Richard Bonnie, who does not believe that the insanity defense should be abolished, argues that
-
It works well.
-
Some defendants should not be blamed or punished for their acts
-
We should experiment with it further before it is discarded.
-
All of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Some defendants should not be blamed or punished for their actsExplanation
Richard Bonnie believes that some defendants should not be blamed or punished for their acts. This suggests that he supports the use of the insanity defense, as it allows for the consideration of mental illness or incapacity as a factor in determining a person's culpability for their actions. Bonnie's argument implies that there are circumstances where individuals may not have the necessary mental capacity to be held fully responsible for their behavior, and therefore should not be subject to punishment.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
- Involuntary confinement up to length of criminal sentences is allowed on basis of dangerousness and severe mental illness; problematic for people with mental disorders if they do not receive proper treatment during that time – no less dangerous when released
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. IncapacitationExplanation
Incapacitation is the correct answer because the given statement explains that involuntary confinement is allowed for individuals who are deemed dangerous and have severe mental illness. This form of confinement is seen as a way to protect society from potential harm caused by these individuals. It also mentions that without proper treatment, individuals with mental disorders can still be dangerous even after their release. Therefore, the purpose of this confinement is to incapacitate them and prevent them from causing harm to others.Rate this question:
- 18.
Plaintiff may recover the percentage of damages corresponding to defendant's percentage and defendant may recover from the plaintiff
-
Pure Comparative
-
50 Percent Rule
-
51 Percent Rule
Correct Answer
A. Pure ComparativeExplanation
In a pure comparative negligence system, the plaintiff is able to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for the incident. The amount of damages they can recover is reduced by their percentage of fault. In this case, the plaintiff can recover the percentage of damages corresponding to the defendant's percentage of fault. Additionally, the defendant may also be able to recover from the plaintiff if they can prove that the plaintiff was partially at fault for the incident.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
According to the “Durham Rule” approved by Federal appeals Judge David Baselon in 1954, the accused offender is not responsible for an offense if:
-
He did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he was aware of the nature and quality of the act, that he did not know that what we was doing was wrong.
-
He did not have the knowledge or intention required by the definition of the offense due to some mental disease
-
He suffers from a mental disease or mental defect that directly caused or produced the offense.
-
He lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongness of his action or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Correct Answer
A. He suffers from a mental disease or mental defect that directly caused or produced the offense.Explanation
The correct answer is that the accused offender suffers from a mental disease or mental defect that directly caused or produced the offense. This means that if the offender has a mental illness or defect that can be proven to have directly caused them to commit the offense, they cannot be held fully responsible for their actions. This aligns with the Durham Rule, which states that a lack of knowledge or intention due to a mental disease can absolve the accused of responsibility.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
Policeman at the Elbow Test
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. Irresistible Impulse TestExplanation
The correct answer is the Irresistible Impulse Test. This test is used in criminal law to determine if a defendant's mental illness prevented them from controlling their actions at the time of the crime. It focuses on the defendant's ability to resist their impulses rather than their ability to understand the nature of their actions. This test is often used as a defense in cases where the defendant claims that their mental illness caused them to commit the crime.Rate this question:
-
- 21.
Gives defendants the option to either implicitly or explicitly bargain for sentence concessions in exchange for a jury waiver
-
Complete ban on plea bargaining
-
Jury Waiver Bargaining
-
Ban after indictment
-
Plea Bargaining Cut-Off
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Jury Waiver BargainingExplanation
Jury waiver bargaining refers to the practice where defendants have the choice to negotiate for sentence concessions in exchange for giving up their right to a jury trial. This means that defendants can either implicitly or explicitly bargain with the prosecution for a more lenient sentence if they agree to waive their right to a trial by jury. This option allows defendants to potentially receive a more favorable outcome in their case by avoiding the uncertainty and potential harshness of a jury trial.Rate this question:
-
- 22.
Plaintiff may recover if his fault is as great or less than the defendant
-
Pure Comparative
-
50 Percent Rule
-
51 Percent Rule
Correct Answer
A. 50 Percent RuleExplanation
Under the 50 Percent Rule, the plaintiff is allowed to recover damages as long as their fault is equal to or less than the defendant's fault. This means that even if the plaintiff is partially at fault for the incident, they can still receive compensation for their damages. This rule is a form of pure comparative negligence, where the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff is reduced by their percentage of fault. Therefore, if the plaintiff's fault is 50 percent or less, they are eligible for recovery under the 50 Percent Rule.Rate this question:
-
- 23.
Reasonably short lived before it fell out of favor
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. Durham TestExplanation
The Durham Test is the correct answer because it refers to a legal standard used in criminal cases to determine whether a defendant's actions were a product of mental illness or defect. The test states that a defendant is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the result of a mental disease or defect. This test was used in the United States for a period of time before it fell out of favor and was replaced by other standards such as the M'Naughten Test and the ALI's "Model Penal Code." The phrase "reasonably short lived before it fell out of favor" suggests that the Durham Test was only used for a limited time before being replaced.Rate this question:
-
- 24.
North Carolina has the doctrine of
-
Comparative Fault
-
Contributory Negligence
-
Pure Comparative
Correct Answer
A. Contributory NegligenceExplanation
North Carolina follows the doctrine of contributory negligence. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be even partially at fault for their own injuries or damages, they will be completely barred from recovering any compensation from the defendant. In other words, if the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the accident in any way, they cannot recover damages, regardless of how much fault the defendant may have had. This is a strict standard compared to comparative negligence, where the plaintiff can still recover damages proportionate to their degree of fault.Rate this question:
-
- 25.
Which of Leandro Andrade’s requests were not denied by the courts?
-
A petition for writ of habeus corpus to the Federal District Court
-
A request for a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
-
A motion to reduce his petty theft offenses to misdemeanors in the trial court
-
A request for discretionary review to the California Supreme Court
Correct Answer
A. A request for a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of AppealsExplanation
Leandro Andrade's requests for a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Federal District Court, a motion to reduce his petty theft offenses to misdemeanors in the trial court, and a request for discretionary review to the California Supreme Court were all denied by the courts. However, his request for a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was not denied.Rate this question:
-
- 26.
Occurene of criminal offense
-
Mens rea
-
Actus rea
Correct Answer
A. Actus reaExplanation
Actus rea refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes a crime. It is one of the two elements required to establish criminal liability, the other being mens rea, which refers to the mental state or intention of the offender. In order for a person to be held responsible for a criminal offense, both actus rea and mens rea must be present. Actus rea can include a wide range of actions, from simple acts like theft or assault to more complex behaviors like conspiracy or fraud. Without actus rea, there can be no criminal liability.Rate this question:
-
- 27.
Defendant should be held responsible for his actions if he could not tell that they were wrong at the time he committed them
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. M’Naughten TestExplanation
The M'Naughten Test is the correct answer because it states that a defendant should be held responsible for their actions if they could not tell that they were wrong at the time they committed them. This test focuses on the defendant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions and whether they were able to distinguish right from wrong. It is a widely used legal test for determining criminal responsibility and is based on the principle that individuals who are mentally incapacitated should not be held fully accountable for their actions.Rate this question:
-
- 28.
Prohibit case after plea has been in the system a certain amount of tiem
-
Complete ban on plea bargaining
-
Jury Waiver Bargaining
-
Ban after indictment
-
Plea Bargaining Cut-Off
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Plea Bargaining Cut-OffExplanation
The correct answer is "Plea Bargaining Cut-Off". This refers to a situation where the option for plea bargaining is no longer available after a certain point in the legal process. It means that once a case has reached a specific stage or milestone, such as after an indictment or a certain amount of time in the system, plea bargaining is no longer allowed. This may be done to ensure fairness, prevent manipulation of the system, or encourage a trial to proceed instead of settling through plea negotiations.Rate this question:
-
- 29.
- Involuntary confinement up to length of criminal sentences is allowed on basis of dangerousness and severe mental illness; problematic for people with mental disorders if they do not receive proper treatment during that time – no less dangerous when released
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. IncapacitationExplanation
Incapacitation is the correct answer because the given explanation supports this concept. Involuntary confinement is allowed for individuals who are deemed dangerous or have severe mental illness. This is a form of incapacitation as it removes these individuals from society and prevents them from causing harm to others. The explanation also mentions that it is problematic for people with mental disorders if they do not receive proper treatment during this time, indicating that the purpose of the confinement is to incapacitate them rather than rehabilitate them.Rate this question:
- 30.
Plaintiff may recover if his fault is less than the defendant
-
Pure Comparative
-
50 Percent Rule
-
51 Percent Rule
Correct Answer
A. 51 Percent RuleExplanation
In a comparative negligence system, such as the 51 percent rule, the plaintiff may still recover damages even if they were partially at fault for the incident. However, this recovery is only possible if the plaintiff's fault is less than the defendant's. In the 51 percent rule, the plaintiff can recover as long as their fault is 50 percent or less, but if their fault exceeds 51 percent, they are barred from any recovery. Therefore, the statement "Plaintiff may recover if his fault is less than the defendant" aligns with the 51 percent rule.Rate this question:
-
- 31.
Moralistic component
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. M’Naughten TestExplanation
The M'Naughten Test is a legal test used to determine whether a person is legally insane at the time of committing a crime. It focuses on the defendant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions and distinguish between right and wrong. The other options listed are also legal tests used to assess a defendant's mental state, but the M'Naughten Test specifically includes a moralistic component in determining insanity.Rate this question:
-
- 32.
Public loses faith in giving criminals bargains for commiting a serious crime
-
Integrity Arguement
-
Defendants Benefit Unjustly Argument
-
Coerceion of the Innocent Argument
-
Pro-Defendant Argument
-
Pro-Victim Argument
Correct Answer
A. Pro-Victim ArgumentExplanation
The given correct answer is "Pro-Victim Argument." This suggests that the public loses faith in giving criminals bargains for committing serious crimes because they believe that it is more important to prioritize the rights and well-being of the victims rather than providing leniency or benefits to the offenders. This argument focuses on seeking justice for the victims and holding the criminals accountable for their actions.Rate this question:
-
- 33.
Exculpating a defendant who can discuss right from wrong, but nevertheless is unable to stop himself from committing an act he knows to be wrong
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. Irresistible Impulse TestExplanation
The correct answer is the Irresistible Impulse Test. This test is used in criminal law to determine whether a defendant can be held responsible for their actions. It focuses on the defendant's ability to control their behavior, even if they understand that their actions are wrong. If the defendant can demonstrate that they had an irresistible impulse to commit the act and were unable to control themselves, they may be exculpated from criminal liability. This test takes into account the defendant's mental state and their inability to stop themselves from committing the act, despite knowing it was wrong.Rate this question:
-
- 34.
Criminal responsibility if the act was the result of a mental disease and he lacks the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform to legal requirements
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. ALI’s “Model Penal Code”Explanation
The correct answer is ALI's "Model Penal Code." The Model Penal Code is a set of guidelines for criminal law that was developed by the American Law Institute (ALI). According to the Model Penal Code, a person is not criminally responsible for their actions if they have a mental disease or defect that prevents them from appreciating the criminality of their conduct or conforming to legal requirements. This aligns with the given statement that a person lacks the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform to legal requirements due to a mental disease. The other options mentioned, such as the Irresistible Impulse Test, M'Naughten Test, and Durham Test, are different legal tests used to determine criminal responsibility in specific jurisdictions.Rate this question:
-
- 35.
More empirical determination than older moral component
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. Durham TestExplanation
The Durham Test is the correct answer because it emphasizes the importance of empirical determination in assessing criminal responsibility. Unlike the other tests listed, which focus on the defendant's moral component or irresistible impulse, the Durham Test considers whether the defendant's actions were a product of a mental disease or defect. This test recognizes that criminal behavior may be influenced by various psychological factors and requires a thorough evaluation of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense.Rate this question:
-
- 36.
- Problematic when used to justify punishing individuals suffering with mental disorders because it is based on free will
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. RetributionExplanation
Retribution is problematic when used to justify punishing individuals suffering from mental disorders because it is based on the concept of free will. Mental disorders can impair a person's ability to make rational choices and control their actions. Therefore, punishing them for their behavior based on the idea of retribution, which assumes that individuals have complete control over their actions, is unjust. It fails to take into account the underlying factors that contribute to their actions and does not address the need for treatment and support for individuals with mental disorders.Rate this question:
- 37.
Criminal justice considers
-
Mens rea
-
Actus rea
Correct Answer(s)
A. Mens rea
A. Actus reaExplanation
Mens rea and actus rea are two fundamental concepts in criminal justice. Mens rea refers to the mental state or intention of a person when committing a crime, while actus rea refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes the crime. Both mens rea and actus rea must be present for a person to be held criminally responsible. Mens rea ensures that individuals are not unjustly punished for accidental or unintentional actions, while actus rea ensures that individuals cannot be punished solely based on their thoughts or intentions. Therefore, considering both mens rea and actus rea is crucial in determining guilt or innocence in criminal cases.Rate this question:
-
- 38.
Supreme Court justification for plea bargaining
-
Encourages rehabilitation
-
Presumption of equal bargaining power between parties
-
Doesnt drive defendant to false self condemnation
Correct Answer(s)
A. Encourages rehabilitation
A. Presumption of equal bargaining power between parties
A. Doesnt drive defendant to false self condemnationExplanation
The Supreme Court's justification for plea bargaining includes several factors. Firstly, it encourages rehabilitation by offering defendants the opportunity to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence or other benefits. This allows them to take responsibility for their actions and work towards reform. Secondly, it operates on the presumption of equal bargaining power between the parties involved, ensuring a fair negotiation process. Lastly, plea bargaining does not force the defendant into falsely condemning themselves, as they have the choice to accept or reject the plea offer.Rate this question:
-
- 39.
Critisized for broadness and emphasis on psychiatric testimony
-
Irresistible Impulse Test
-
M’Naughten Test
-
Durham Test
-
ALI’s “Model Penal Code”
Correct Answer
A. Durham TestExplanation
The Durham Test is criticized for its broadness and emphasis on psychiatric testimony. This test states that an individual is not criminally responsible for their actions if their behavior was a product of a mental disease or defect. Critics argue that this test allows for too much discretion and relies heavily on psychiatric experts, which can lead to inconsistent and subjective outcomes.Rate this question:
-
- 40.
Richard Bonnie describes three contemporary options to approaching the insanity defense. Which of the following approaches entails a “volitional prong”?
-
The Mens Rea Approach
-
The Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute
-
The revival of M’Naghten
-
Some of the Above
-
All of the Above
Correct Answer
A. The Model Penal Code of the American Law InstituteExplanation
The Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute entails a "volitional prong" in approaching the insanity defense. This means that in addition to proving a mental illness or defect, the defendant must also demonstrate that they lacked the ability to control their actions or conform their behavior to the law at the time of the crime. This approach takes into consideration both the cognitive and volitional aspects of insanity.Rate this question:
-
- 41.
Allows defendants the opportunity to appeal their conviction on the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel
-
Complete ban on plea bargaining
-
Jury Waiver Bargaining
-
Ban after indictment
-
Plea Bargaining Cut-Off
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Jury Waiver BargainingExplanation
Jury waiver bargaining refers to a situation where defendants are given the option to waive their right to a trial by jury in exchange for a more lenient plea deal. This means that they can choose to have their case heard by a judge instead of a jury. The given correct answer suggests that jury waiver bargaining allows defendants to appeal their conviction if they believe that their lawyer did not provide effective assistance during the trial.Rate this question:
-
- 42.
Forces defendant to give up chances at trial
-
Integrity Arguement
-
Defendants Benefit Unjustly Argument
-
Coerceion of the Innocent Argument
-
Pro-Defendant Argument
-
Pro-Victim Argument
Correct Answer
A. Pro-Defendant ArgumentExplanation
The Pro-Defendant Argument suggests that forcing the defendant to give up their chances at trial is unfair. This argument emphasizes the importance of the defendant's rights and the presumption of innocence. It asserts that coercing the defendant to forgo their trial denies them the opportunity to present their case, challenge evidence, and prove their innocence. This argument prioritizes the protection of the defendant's rights and argues against any actions that may undermine the fairness and integrity of the legal process.Rate this question:
-
- 43.
is due proccess irrelevant or does it affect the stregth of the sides during the bargain?
-
Integrity Arguement
-
Defendants Benefit Unjustly Argument
-
Coerceion of the Innocent Argument
-
Pro-Defendant Argument
-
Pro-Victim Argument
Correct Answer
A. Integrity ArguementExplanation
The integrity argument suggests that due process is relevant and does affect the strength of the sides during the bargain. This means that the fairness and credibility of the legal process are important in determining the outcome of a negotiation or bargaining situation. If due process is disregarded or compromised, it can undermine the integrity of the proceedings and potentially lead to unjust outcomes. Therefore, upholding due process is crucial in ensuring a fair and balanced bargaining process.Rate this question:
-
- 44.
Certainty of conviction is as much of a gamble for the prosecution as for the defense
-
Integrity Arguement
-
Defendants Benefit Unjustly Argument
-
Coerceion of the Innocent Argument
-
Pro-Defendant Argument
-
Pro-Victim Argument
Correct Answer
A. Defendants Benefit Unjustly ArgumentExplanation
The "Defendants Benefit Unjustly Argument" suggests that the certainty of conviction can be a gamble for both the prosecution and the defense because there is a possibility that defendants may benefit unjustly. This argument implies that even if the prosecution presents a strong case, there is always a chance that a defendant may be acquitted due to various factors such as lack of evidence, legal technicalities, or biased jury members. Therefore, the certainty of conviction is not guaranteed, and defendants can potentially benefit from this uncertainty in an unjust manner.Rate this question:
-
- 45.
The contemporary justice system has a further aim of
-
Retribution
-
Deterrence
-
Incapacitation
-
Rehabilitation
Correct Answer
A. DeterrenceExplanation
The contemporary justice system aims to achieve deterrence, which means discouraging potential offenders from committing crimes by imposing punishments that are severe enough to make them think twice before engaging in criminal activities. This approach focuses on the idea that the fear of punishment will serve as a deterrent and prevent individuals from engaging in illegal behavior. By imposing harsh penalties, the justice system aims to send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated and that there will be consequences for those who break the law.Rate this question:
-
- 46.
Which of the following is not one of the criticisms of plea bargaining outlined by Guidorizzi?
-
Plea bargaining coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty
-
Plea bargaining undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system
-
Plea bargaining allows criminals to evade proportionately severe punishments
-
Plea bargaining undermines the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions
-
Plea bargaining thwarts cooperation among members of the courtroom work group
Correct Answer
A. Plea bargaining thwarts cooperation among members of the courtroom work groupExplanation
The answer is not one of the criticisms outlined by Guidorizzi. The criticisms mentioned by Guidorizzi include coercing innocent defendants to plead guilty, undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system, allowing criminals to evade severe punishments, and undermining the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions. However, Guidorizzi does not mention that plea bargaining thwarts cooperation among members of the courtroom work group.Rate this question:
-
- 47.
Usse of plea bargains only before a grand jury returns a felony indictment
-
Complete ban on plea bargaining
-
Jury Waiver Bargaining
-
Ban after indictment
-
Plea Bargaining Cut-Off
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Ban after indictmentExplanation
The correct answer is "Ban after indictment." This means that plea bargaining is only prohibited after a grand jury returns a felony indictment. This suggests that plea bargaining is allowed before the indictment stage, but once the indictment is issued, the option for plea bargaining is no longer available.Rate this question:
-
- 48.
Slow Plea
-
Complete ban on plea bargaining
-
Jury Waiver Bargaining
-
Ban after indictment
-
Plea Bargaining Cut-Off
-
None of the above.
Correct Answer
A. Jury Waiver BargainingExplanation
Jury waiver bargaining refers to a process in which a defendant agrees to waive their right to a trial by jury in exchange for certain concessions from the prosecution. This means that the defendant would instead have their case heard and decided by a judge. The other options mentioned in the question, such as a complete ban on plea bargaining or a cut-off point for plea bargaining, do not specifically relate to the concept of jury waiver bargaining. Therefore, the correct answer is "Jury Waiver Bargaining."Rate this question:
-
- 49.
Supreme Court Ruling of Tayler v. Walker
-
Questioned the forseeableness of the action
-
Taylor was contributorily negligent
-
Taylor acted reasonably under admittedly difficult circumstances
-
Granted Motion for Judgment notwithstanding
Correct Answer(s)
A. Questioned the forseeableness of the action
A. Taylor acted reasonably under admittedly difficult circumstancesExplanation
The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Tayler v. Walker examined the foreseeability of the action in question. It questioned whether the outcome or consequences of the action could have been reasonably anticipated. Additionally, the ruling acknowledged that Taylor acted reasonably under difficult circumstances, implying that Taylor's actions were justified given the challenging situation. As a result, the court granted the Motion for Judgment notwithstanding, indicating that the judgment was made in favor of Taylor despite any contributory negligence on their part.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Dec 7, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Dec 07, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 10, 2011Quiz Created by
Amassog