Even though the judicial legal system is tasked with the duty of punishing those who break the law and ensuring that justice is delivered, its power is guided by a set of laws that govern the decisions made. The judicial system follows various laws to ensure that the correct processes are followed when a case is brought forward to ensure that all parties involved get equal and fair opportunities to make their case before a ruling is made. The judicial system also bears the responsibility of ensuring that everyone is considered to be innocent and treated as such until it is proven in court that he or she is guilty of the charges filed against him. Various protocols are observed when determining whether someone is guilty or not. In some occasions, such protocols lead to individuals guilty of having committed a crime being set free regardless of having broken the law.
In accordance to the Winship doctrine, a prosecutor in the court of law is required by law to ensure that facts are used to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty of the crime charged against them. This is especially because convicting someone is much more expensive than letting them go when their guilt is questionable and there is a possibility they did not commit the crime. The doctrine is therefore a form of assurance that only guilty people are convicted and this goes a long way in maintaining people’s confidence in the judicial system. Because of this, it is the responsibility of the system to prove that an accused not only committed a crime but did so knowingly and willingly (Girgis, 2013).
In some cases, an individual may have committed an act that is criminal in nature but be set free by the judicial system. For a person to be found guilty and convicted, the court must prove that the accused had a guilty mind when committing the crime. It must be shown that the accused voluntarily committed the act or failed to act and the result led to a form of social harm (Girgis, 2013).
An example of a scenario where an individual was set free despite having committed a crime is the case of Martin versus the State. Martin had been brought to court with the charges of being arrested for being drunk and disorderly on a public highway. He however appealed to the court on the claim that he was arrested in his home, drunk, and then taken onto the highway where the alleged actions of speaking loudly and profanely occurred (Simpson, 1994). By law, any individual who gets drunk and engages in indecent behavior or is drunk and disorderly in a public place shall be found guilty and fined by the court of law. However, the accused was not in a public place during the time of arrest as it was the police men who took him from his house. Even though Martin did break the law and engage in indecent behavior while in public, the court had to release him as he was taken to the scene of the offence against his will. For an individual to be convicted, it must be proven that the act to commit the crime was intentional and voluntary. In the case of Martin, he did not go voluntarily to a public place but was taken there by the police officers.
Work cited
Girgis S, (2013) “The mens rea of accomplice liability: Supporting intentions” The Yale Law Journal
Simpson J, (1994) “Martin v. State” Court of Appeals of Alabama
