Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … U.S. ICC Treaty
The Benefits and Drawbacks of the U.S. Entering Into an ICC Treaty
An ICC treaty would involve the International Criminal Court (Broomhall, 2003). A treaty with such a governing body is designed to affect prosecution for war crimes, genocide, the crime of aggression (but not until 2017), and crimes against humanity (Roach, 2009). The Court is seated in the Netherlands, but proceedings can take place in other countries (Roach, 2009). While many countries are part of the ICC in that they have treaties with it, the United States does not want to be one of the countries that allows the ICC to have domination over it when it comes to war crimes and related issues. There are both benefits and drawbacks for the U.S. If it changes its position and creates a treaty with the ICC. Both of these are important to discuss, because they have to be carefully weighed before the U.S. can make a choice as to whether it would be an overall benefit or an overall detriment to engage in such a treaty.
Among the major cons of the U.S. having a treaty with the ICC is the belief that the checks and...
There are too many opportunities for abuse, and for prosecutions that are too closely based on politics and not based on actual evidence or information (Roach, 2009). Henry Kissinger stated the weakness of the checks and balances, and indicated that there would be virtually limitless discretion by the prosecutor (Roach, 2009). Because of that, the prosecutor and the rest of the ICC would be able to make choices that might not accurately reflect the truth of the matter at hand, or the guilt or innocence of the accused (Broomhall, 2003). ICC protections are also thought to be insufficient, and there are many concerns that the constitutional rights of Americans who would be required to appear before the ICC would not be recognized properly (Broomhall, 2003). These rights include confronting ones accusers, trial by jury, and the avoidance of double jeopardy (Roach, 2009).
There are some benefits to the United States, of course, but they are relatively small. The camaraderie with other nations who have treaties with the ICC, and the conformity the U.S. would…
References
Broomhall, B. (2003). International Justice and the International Criminal Court: Between Sovereignty and the Rule of Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Roach, S.C. (ed.) (2009). Governance, Order, and the International Criminal Court: Between Realpolitik and a Cosmopolitan Court. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Double Jeopardy The ancient common rule prohibition on multiple trials, known as the double jeopardy, is a procedural protection that forbids the prosecution of an offender for an unlawful offence. The offender, in this case, may have been previously acquitted or convicted following a trial on the merits by a legal system of a competent criminal jurisdiction. Double jeopardy arises when there is a prior criminal trial. In many states of
Double Jeopardy and Legislative Limitations The legal concept of "Double Jeopardy" is a rather simple one to define and to understand, but application of the Double Jeopardy standard is anything but easy or simple. On a very basic level, Double Jeopardy is a limitation in court proceedings that the same person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, regardless of the verdict or outcome of the first trial. But, as
If the double jeopardy clause was used to bar parallel federal prosecutions, the defendant in this case would be free regardless of the overwhelming evidence of his participation in the crime. This would mean that the criminal justice system in the country would have exercised a great level of injustice. Different Interests: The double jeopardy clause should not be used to prohibit parallel state and federal prosecutions different units of governments
BEREFORD'S DOUBLE JEOPARDY Double Jeopardy An Analysis of Bruce Bereford's Double Jeopardy Introduction to Film Professor Kim Elliott-White Double Jeopardy Double Jeopardy (1999) is a thriller by Austrailian director Bruce Bereford, which stars Ashley Judd as Elizabeth "Libby" Parsons, a woman wrongly accused of murdering her husband, Bruce Greenwood as Nicholas "Nick" Parsons/Simon Ryder/Jonathan Devereaux, Libby's husband, and Tommy Lee Jones, as Travis Lehman, a former law professor who is Libby's parole officer and eventually
Criminal Justice: On September 18 at around 2:30 PM, the victim, a famous citizen in the community was assaulted and robbed of his wallet by the defendant on his way home. The victim was not only assaulted but he was also pushed against his car and threatened with a knife. The crime generated huge media attention because of the victim's popularity as calls for speedy arrest and conviction of the criminal
The second stated parenting style, specifically the 'authoritative' parenting style is generally believed among researchers to be the optimum parenting style for positive outcomes specifically relating to intergenerational transmission of cyclic problems relating to abuse and violence in families. VI. LIFE COURSE TRAJECTORY of CRIME and VIOLENCE It is stated in the work of Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub entitled: "A Life-Course View of the Development of Crime "