Role of the judicial branch of the federal government

Roleof the judicial branch of the federal government

Thejudicial branch of the federal government checks and balances all theother branches of the federal government. The following are some ofthe methods in which this branch of the government makes sure thatthe legislative and the state government are balanced and are runaccording to the provisions of the country’s constitution.

Forinstance, the judicial branch makes certain that the legislativebranch of the government is not able to punish defendants withouthaving a trial or enacting a retroactive criminal status according tothe constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws and billof attainder. A bill of attainder implies the punishment of adefendant by the legislative branch of the government without havinga trial. This bill was accomplished by statute that targets peoplefor government sanction. On the other hand, the ex post facto lawspunish a person retroactively and severely intrude on views offairness. Ex post facto laws only apply to criminal laws.

Thejudiciary also has the equal protection clause that is aimed atcontrolling the state government. This clause prevents the stategovernment from enacting any laws that are unjustifiably andunreasonably discriminating. For this reason, the judiciary helps thestate government to avoid discrimination of persons in the country.For instance, the government is not allowed to discriminate anyperson based on unreasonable factors such as race and nationalorigin.

TheUse of Voluntary Intoxication in Defense

Intoxicationis a defense mechanism used in court to show that the defendant doesnot have the requisite ability for criminal intent. Intoxication maymean that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or drugs. Astate of intoxication may be achieved involuntarily or voluntarily.Intoxication helps to reduce the severity of a particular casebecause it shows that the defendant was not in their right minds whenthey committed the crime. Voluntary intoxication implies that thedefendant intentionally took intoxicating substances such as alcoholor drugs. A crime that is committed after the defendant voluntarilyintoxicated themselves cannot be excused unless the intoxicationprevents the accused from forming any criminal intent. However, ifthe action was a careless act of intoxication, the crime cannot beexcused by the court.

Anexample of voluntary intoxication defense was used in the 1970, R vLipman case. In this case, the defendant was a drug addict who hadvoluntarily taken LSD. After taking this drug, this man had theillusion that he was being attacked by snakes and was descending tothe center of the earth. While in the course of his panic attack, hepunched his friend who was also under the influence of the drug andthis led to brain damage. After having the brain damage, thedefendant’s friend crammed two inches of bed sheet in her mount anddied of asphyxia. In his defense, the defendant claimed that he wasunder the influence of the drug and was not aware of what he wasdoing. His defense was rejected and the man was convicted ofmanslaughter. The court argued that for the purpose of criminalresponsibility, the court cannot excuse careless actions done as aresult of voluntary intoxication.

References

StormLisa. Introductionto Criminal Law.(1stedition, n.d).