RESEARCH TABLE FOR PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE SUPPORTED OR COMPROMISED IN THE DARRYLBEAMISH CASE.
| Principle of justice | Explanation | How supported or compromised in your case |
| Reliable evidence | Evidence that can be proved to be correct DNA eyewitness security footage fingerprints objects clothes blood confessions indirect circumstantial evidence (evidence that doesn’t prove directly that something happens) | reliable evidence was compromised for him He stated that he was threatened and intimidated into his 4 confessions He had said on multiple occasions that he had not committed the murder. |
| Unbiased/impartial court | People in court judging the matter must not have opinions on it, otherwise they could give unfair punish7ments | this was compromised They used his past offences against minors against him which can be triggering to some people and can negatively affect their opinions on whether he is guilty or not. |
| Right to legal representation | Defendant has a right to have assistance in court by lawyers if defendant cant afford a lawyer government has to appoint one | this was supported He was allowed a lawyer in court and he was able to have legal representation in court and not. |
| Jury | Group of people (typically 12) who give a verdict based on evidence given in the court, randomly select from the community | this was compromised as they brought up his past offenses against 4 little girls during the cross examination. The mentioning of it created bias towards Beamish. They also called him “sexually perverted”, then said that “the murderer of Brewer must have been perverted.” they had no evidence to back that up. |
| Presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt | When an accused comes into a court the judge and jury must presume that they are innocent until the prosecution proves them guilty so that there is no other explanation as to who committed the crime, or how the event happened | this was compromised the people gong to trial against Beamish shaped their case around his 4 confessions but neither of these could prove that he had done the murder beyond reasonable doubt as he is deaf and mute so he is unable to fully understand what he is being asked. |
| Precedent | Decisions from previous trials they are guide for trials that have similar circumstances | this was supported and not supported at the same time. Usually in murder cases like this the prosecutor isn’t allowed to mention someone past offenses if they may make the jury bias. |
| Independent courts and judges | Courts and judges need to have no influence from governments or political parties, or any other private people and companies | This was supported as they used a jury which knew nothing really about Beamish before the case and knew nothing about the actual murder case before the trial. However during the trial this wasn’t supported as they used a past offense on a minor to make the jury bias towards him. |
| Right to silence | The right to not answer a question on any matter that you would not like to answer or comment on when arrested by police so that people don’t incriminate themselves | this was supported as he was allowed to stay silent during the case and when he was questioned and brought to the crime scene. Although he stated that he was threatened and bullied to answer questions which he didn’t understand and he also stated that he only knew things about the case which were not released to the public because when asked one of teh detectives sort of told him the answers. |
| Appeals | A request for a higher court to look at a case to see if the decisions was unfair, and if so, re-do the trials | he appealed multiple times but this was compromised. The first time he wanted an appeal him and his lawyers appealed for the burden of proof was not upheld but that was rejected. He also appealed for a second time in 1964 after known serial killer Rodger Cooke admitted to killing Brewer but the police didn’t believe him because they said that “he was trying to be a bigger man” even though he told them where he got the weapons and how he got into her home. |
| Right to be treated equally by the courts | Everyone is required to be treated fairly by the court , even if they have committed a crime or been the victim of a crime. Doesn’t mean they have to be treated the same, just that they are not discriminated against | This was compromised He wasn’t treated fairly as they used past offences against minors to make the jury unjust and bias towards him. |
Pages: 1 2