Category: Criminal Law

“How A Theory Of Crime And Policing Was Born, And Went Terribly Wrong”,

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

After Reading the Kelling and Wilson (1982) article, and listening to the NPR Podcast titled “How A Theory Of Crime And Policing Was Born, And Went Terribly Wrong”, answer any two of the following questions (300 words each section). Please use APA style citations when referring to information in the article (not the podcast). Lastly, please be sure to respond back to at least two other students in addition to the word count minimum (see syllabus for details).

1) What is broken windows theory? Why was it developed?

2) What communities did the implementation of broken windows effect the most? Why?

3) How do broken windows policies effect community police relations? Are there any positive outcomes through the use of broken windows policies? Please explain in detail.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/Links to an external site.

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/01/500104506/broken-windows-policing-and-the-origins-of-stop-and-frisk-and-how-it-went-wrongLinks to an external site.

Drug Laws

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Chasing the Scream discusses the work of John Marks, a physician who prescribed heroin to those struggling with heroin addiction in England. He is quoted as saying that many “of the harms of drugs are to do with the laws around them, not the drugs themselves.” (Hari, 2015, p. 210)

Explain if you agree or disagree.

Criminology question

Posted on | by

 

 

 

 

 

Maria has been angry with Carlos for a very long time. She had threatened to kill Carlos on a couple of occasions. One day, Maria sees Carlos standing on a street corner waiting to cross the street. There are several people standing around Carlos, also waiting to cross. Maria pulls out a gun and fires at Carlos. The bullet grazes Carlos’s arm, injuring him. However, the same bullet strikes and kills Raquel, who was unknown to Maria.

1) Considering the ideas and concepts covered this week, what crime or crimes has Maria committed? Explain your reasoning, especially with regard to actus rea, mens rea and corpus delicti. What might be some valid defenses that Maria may assert?

2) Now, research the relevant statutes in your state that correspond to the crimes and defenses that you discussed in your answers to Q1. In light of what you see in your state statutes, how might your answers, including about possible defenses, change (if at all)?

3) How did conducting research and going through each step of legal analysis help you to reach this conclusion? Analyze how you applied critical thinking and legal analytical skills to assist you in this regard. What new research and/or analytical tool or method did you try for the first time this week? What do you think you do well and what would you like to strengthen so that you continue to improve?

 

 

Kant’s law of nature formula of categorical imperative

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Explain why, according to Kant’s law of nature formula of categorical imperative, it is wrong to make a lying promise. Why would it be wrong according to his principle of ends formula of the categorical imperative? Do you agree with Kant that lying is always wrong, or are there exceptions? Explain why or why not.

Jurisdiction/Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Taking “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” SeriouslyLinks to an external site. and Federal and State JurisdictionLinks to an external site. Additionally, watch What Does Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Mean?Links to an external site.

A central component to any criminal case is the jurisdictional requirement for a court to hear a criminal case. In your examinations this week, focus on the power of jurisdiction and its significance as part of the criminal justice system. Who creates jurisdiction, and why is it so significant? Similarly, a sound understanding of the legal requirement that the prosecution must prove every element of a statute beyond a reasonable doubt is required for all criminal justice professionals. This discussion requires you to examine reasonable doubt instructions for juries from three states and choose which one is best; remember to justify your responses with reliable sources.

If your last name begins with the letters A through L: Explain the central components of the legal term and substantive criminal law requirement for jurisdiction. At a minimum, your response must detail all of the following:
What is jurisdiction, and how does it affect criminal prosecution?
Can the type of crime determine jurisdiction for a court?
Distinguish between federal and state jurisdiction for courts in criminal cases.

Jurisdiction/Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Taking “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” SeriouslyLinks to an external site. and Federal and State JurisdictionLinks to an external site. Additionally, watch What Does Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Mean?Links to an external site.

A central component to any criminal case is the jurisdictional requirement for a court to hear a criminal case. In your examinations this week, focus on the power of jurisdiction and its significance as part of the criminal justice system. Who creates jurisdiction, and why is it so significant? Similarly, a sound understanding of the legal requirement that the prosecution must prove every element of a statute beyond a reasonable doubt is required for all criminal justice professionals. This discussion requires you to examine reasonable doubt instructions for juries from three states and choose which one is best; remember to justify your responses with reliable sources.

If your last name begins with the letters A through L: Explain the central components of the legal term and substantive criminal law requirement for jurisdiction. At a minimum, your response must detail all of the following:
What is jurisdiction, and how does it affect criminal prosecution?
Can the type of crime determine jurisdiction for a court?
Distinguish between federal and state jurisdiction for courts in criminal cases.

The shared responsibilities of DHS and the IC

Posted on | by

 

 

Background: DHS identifies 16 critical infrastructure sectors. Protecting America’s critical infrastructure and key assets is a formidable national security challenge and requires more than just resources. The intelligence community (IC) has a very important role in protecting critical infrastructure by providing timely intelligence collection and relevant analysis and reporting. The IC provides essential threat warning, situational awareness; and with effective and timely collection can gain access to our adversaries’ intentions and capabilities.
Question: As part of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) describe the shared responsibilities of DHS and the IC in producing indications and warnings, facilitating intelligence and information sharing, and making recommendations to improve processes for disseminating threat data collection and analysis to state and local government and private industry.

The role of cyber intelligence

Posted on | by

 

 

Provide your assessment of the role of cyber intelligence and how the IC should prioritize and resource this emerging intelligence discipline in support of the homeland security mission.
• Discuss the threat actors, threat warnings, and what makes cyber intelligence different from traditional intelligence disciplines.
• Other options to consider are the legalities and oversight of cyber intelligence.

The rights of the owner or of the protestors

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

There is a business owner in your city wanting to open the first fully nude strip club. There are also a group of people who are protesting the opening of this strip club. Imagine you are an attorney who is being hired to argue one side of this issue.
Which side would you argue (the rights of the owner or the rights of the protestors)? Why?
What points would you make in your argument?
You must use relevant case law in your argument and connect your arguments to the 1st amendment.

Fierro v. Gomez

Posted on | by Brian Leakey
  1. Read Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301 (1996). Did the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hold that the gas chamber procedure in California was constitutional under the Eighth Amendment? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=26906922262871934&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrLinks to an external site..