As what I have read, the obligations and rights in reference to criminal law, every case is different. The most common cases when defending oneself against a criminal charge are “I didn’t do it” and “I did it but I shouldn’t be held responsible.” In one of the defenses of a criminal charge, there is one topic where people are innocent until proven guilty. It is an actual presumption where the judge and jury assume they are innocent until they show otherwise. That is why a defendant can remain silent, “plead the fifth,” or propose evidence to his or her assumption of innocence.
In another defense case of a criminal charge is when the prosecutor demonstrates the jury or the judge that there is no reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilty. When reasonable doubt is at hand, then the prosecutor fails and the defendant is proven guilty. Most standards are so high because the prosecutor’s allegations have raised some reasonable doubt that most defendants do tend to concentrate on.
One way that the defendants prove they didn’t do it is to reveal that they could not have done it. The evidence shown that the defendant was somewhere else, or often with another person, and could not have been the perpetrator is known as the alibi defense. When the defendant has proven oneself to the judge and jury, he is still likely to have reasonable doubt of guilt.
Most defendants do plead guilty but they feel that they should not be held responsible for their actions. One of these defenses for not being held responsible is self-defense. It is a common defense when someone is being charged for causing a form of physical violence. Most defendants flip the story over and say that they are victims instead of actually being the aggressor because they are trying to protect themselves from any type of harm. Proving this type of defense can be often tricky because the defendant can get the evidence to prove that they had no other choice but to physically harm their victim.
Although this particular defense case is more well-known in TV drama shows, real life defendants plead insanity as a defense rarely. Judges and jurors are usually skeptical to these claims because they are not always easy to be proven innocent or guilty.
The theory behind this type of defense is that there is a “mental” and “intent” element in notion. If the jury finds the defendant to be truly insane, then the right choice to make is to send them to a psychiatric institution instead of a prison but will not be set free. To finalize whether the defendant is truly insane, they will be put through an intensive psychiatric testing which will define whether or not they have the ability to understand right from wrong. It is normally painful but humiliating at the same time.
When it does come down to people’s right and obligations, sometimes the system isn’t always a fair game. Over the years, defendants have successfully manipulated judges and jurors to convince them that they are innocent one way or another. There are many different types of cases where defendants, sometimes, are not able to get the opportunity they deserve to speak their truth which is why innocent people have been locked up and the real aggressors are still roaming the streets till this day.