Difference Between Legal Guilt And Factual Guilt

705 Words 3 Pages
Legal guilt should take precedence over factual guilt because legal guilt is considered as a more extensive arrangement of components that identify with a crime that wouldn't be viewed as factual guilt. Legal guilt depends on rule of law which makes all the more including rules that can quantify one's guiltiness. When intending to understand the root of the Canadian Criminal Justice system, it’s important to understand the difference between legal guilt and factual guilt. Briefly explaining what each of these laws mean starting with legal guilt the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are criminally responsible by providing enough evidence whereas factual guilt is understanding if the defendant has actually committed the crime or not. Saretzky’s case covers both factual and legal guilt however due to the confessions that Mr.Saretzky has made, legal guilt should be a priority because there’s enough evidence to his criminality. When examining the case, it shows that Saretzky was aware of his actions and criminal behaviour as he proceeded to kill the three innocent people. The defendant was found guilty of all charges including offering indignity. Keeping in mind the end goal to be discovered lawfully guilty of being blamed for a crime the three conjoined elements must exist , first element is “that the defendant did in fact commit the criminal act” (Arrigo, 2014), which Saretzky did in fact commit the criminal act by killing Hanne, Terry and

Related Documents