Plea bargins

Plea bargaining is when a prosecutor offers the defendant in a criminal case the chance to plead guilty to a lesser offence and avoid sitting through a lengthy trial and possibly getting the maximum sentence if found guilty for the original charge. Plea bargains are good for defendants because the have the opportunity to negotiate an exact sentence that they will serve or in the case of a potential death penalty case if the circumstance is right they may be able to plea out of the death penalty in exchange for a life sentence. Recent legislative changes have led to an estimated 85 percent of nonviolent offenders being sentenced to some form of intermediate sanctions program, such as day fines, intensive probation services, electronic in-home monitoring or shock incarceration. Longer sentences and prison overcrowding led to a boom in building new jails and prisons in the '90, but about 10 years ago, fueled by the high costs of incarceration, a backlash developed against long prison sentences for nonviolent offenders. As public opinion began to change, more legislators were able to support alternative sentencing without fear of being labeled "soft on crime." Plea bargaining is relates to sentencing in the way that it does save the government and state if we avoid going to trial and can still reasonably punish the criminals. I am for the most part in agreement with plea bargains except in the cases involving heinous crimes against children and capital murder of course. Plea bargains are also usually the best bet for the criminal. The only problem is when the plea bargain is to lenient and the offender is available to re offend and hurts someone else because they got off on a lenient plea.

8th amendment

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

The eighth amendment in constitution provides protection against excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The eighth amendment is tricky when discussing capital punishment that is still practiced in the United States of America. The problem lies in the interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment. Some may argue that taking the life of another human being is cruel and unusual punishment and simply not something that man should be able to do to another man. There are religious and moral implications to this issue every time it is brought up. I consider myself a conservative, open minded Christian that is pro life but also pro capital punishment. That took several years for me to reach the conclusion that I did indeed support the death penalty. Regarding the eighth amendment and its impact on sentencing there will never be a consensus either way in my opinion. This is an issue that will remain divided until it is either outlawed or mankind goes extinct. The criteria for capital punishment are dependent on the severity of the crime and some argue that race or economic status plays a role I disagree with this. I think if executions were carried out more swiftly they would have more of a deterrent effect on society. The bottom line is that if an individual commits a crime there will be consequences, sometime that means the death penalty.

VICTIMS

Victims are defined as anyone who has suffered a loss or been victimized by another person. This can be any number of things such as personal property loss or damage, physically being violated, assaulted, or murdered. The role of victim affects the criminal justice system in more ways than can be counted. Victims have a story to share at most times during the sentencing phase, and have an impact as most judges take into consideration the personal affect that a crime has had on a victim. The criminal justice system itself tries to prevent crime from occurring by putting laws in place and consequences to deter behavior hopefully preventing some victimization from ever occurring. In the origins of criminal law, the victim and the prosecution were identical. In all legal systems, however, the historical development has led to the establishment of an official prosecution, while the victim’s role has been reduced to that of a witness. Victims have certain rights within the criminal justice system, typically a crime is committed, law enforcement is notified, an investigation takes place where witness statements and victim statements are taken. The offender is usually arrested or charged at this point, the prosecutor evaluates the case, a preliminary trial is conducted and it is decide if the case will go to trial, if there is a trial that happens in superior court and victims usually give testimony. Victims have rights to information, protection, notice, privacy and prompt disposition throughout this whole process. Victim’s advocates are now a part of most all agencies and there function is to assist the victim of a crime that may not be familiar with the process of getting justice for the crime that has occurred. Victims are in some cases entitled to monetary restitution that can be sought and granted in a civil suit against the offender.

Victimless crimes.......ummmmm NO

Public order crimes are those criminal acts that simply do not fit in with what society deems acceptable. These crimes are in opposition to moral beliefs and standards of action that most of us “good people” possess. Moral values are the commonly accepted standards of what is considered right and wrong. Public order crimes are widely viewed as harmful to the public good or harmful and disruptive to a community's daily life. Pornography is one thing, then there is the more serious behavior, paraphilia is sexual behavior considered bizarre or abnormal, such as voyeurism (spying on another for sexual pleasure) or pedophilia (sexual desire involving children). Now these are disturbing to me and most people I would guess but they are crimes that unless expanded on or acted or further that “don’t hurt anyone”. I find great fault with this theory, I think that in most cases these public order crimes do lead to bigger crimes especially dealing with lust and depravity. Sexual addiction for instance is a very real issue in today’s society and can lead a person down some dark roads. Some argue that victimless crimes such as prostitution, pornography, and illegal drug sales should be legalized then controlled and taxed like the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Those with a different point of view stress that there is no such thing as victimless crime. They argue that prostitution and pornography are degrading and often dangerous. Drugs destroy individuals and their families, often leading to thievery for drug money, and even death from drug overdoses. I have to agree that there is no such thing as a victimless crime, it spills over into the lives of us all. I do not think the decriminalization is the answer for crimes such as drug use or prostitution and what it always comes down to for me is the moral aspect involved in endorsing this behavior.

ASSET FORFEITURE

The primary mission of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program is to employ asset forfeiture powers in a manner that enhances public safety and security. This is accomplished by removing the proceeds of crime and other assets relied upon by criminals and their associates to perpetuate their criminal activity against our society. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals. The Federal Asset Forfeiture Program is normally used when a case does not meet the minimum requirements of the State Asset Forfeiture Program or when a district attorney is unable to file a forfeiture case. If federal and state legislature did not include asset forfeiture then the authorities may not be able to react quickly and cut off the criminal’s funding, the authorities can freeze the bank accounts of these individuals. All the proceeds from the sale of assets that are forfeited such as property, vehicles, and businesses and so on are then used by law enforcement to assist in better training and equipment. That sounds fair to me, if you don’t want your assets seized then obey the law. I think the main goal of these laws is to deter criminal activity and also make more resources available to law enforcement. Anti drug legislation has evolved over the years and changed. Asset forfeiture has the power to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals

DUI DWI

DWI/DUI crimes are defined as driving while intoxicated for DWI, and driving under the influence for DUI. This is not limited to consuming alcohol and driving this can include prescription drugs or any number of other mind altering substances. Also this is not limited to driving a motor vehicle but can include operating a bicycle, boat, airplane, wheelchair or even a horse. In the state of Arizona the BAC blood alcohol content is 0.08 and for the first offense the criminal is looking at no less than a 90 suspension of their driving privilege and no more than 1 year. In Arizona the vehicle can also be forfeited for a multiple offenses, which means the authorities seize the offender’s vehicle and most likely sell it. Arizona also participates in the interlock program that requires a device be installed in the offender’s vehicle and they must breathe into it to start the vehicle. The offender pays the 100-200 dollar installation fee and monthly fee of around 70 dollars to have this device in place. I think this sounds like a wonderful deterrent. Because administrative license suspension laws are independent of criminal procedures and are invoked right after arrest, they've been found to be more effective than traditional post-conviction sanctions. Administrative license suspension laws are in place in 41 states and the District of Columbia. A better solution to prevent these crimes may be to increase penalties and be harder on first time offenders. I think regardless of what measures we take people will always make bad choices and drinking and driving is a very common thing for some people that they do even on a daily basis. Also with the growing popularity of pill popping and recreational use of pain medicine it increases the amount of drivers that may be under the influence and behind the wheel.

Personal crimes analysis

Personal crimes are crimes that occur on a personal level and affect the victim in a personal way. There are all different types of crimes that are considered personal. I am going to go over a few such as homicide, assault, battery, mayhem, rape and statutory rape.
Homicide is defined as a person who kills another person or the killing of one human being by another. First degree murder is a type of homicide and is premeditated and intentional. Mens rea refers to the intentional aspect of the crime, purposely or knowingly committing the murder. The punishment for first degree murder is almost always life without parole in prison or the death penalty. Felony murder is committed during the course of a felony that then results in someone’s death even though the death may have been unintentional. Felony murder is a strict liability crime and no mens rea is required. The next type of homicide is second degree murder. Intentional or unintentional are both types of second degree murder, and there is no premeditation in second degree murder. And lastly, manslaughter which can be committed voluntary or intentionally, or unintentionally which is involuntary manslaughter. Provocation and and heat of passion are two key elements that must be proven regarding manslaughter. (Emerson, 2009)
Assault is a personal crime that usually involves contact, or a confrontation between people. An assault involves an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. An assault can occur even without physical contact.
A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Offensive touching can also be considered battery. In assault and battery there has to be lack of one of the following privileges, consent, police conduct, self defense, defense of others, voluntary or mutual combat, defense of property, and merchant’s privilege. Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words. (Larson, 2003)
Mayhem is the infliction of violent injury on a person or thing, or assault with the intent to disfigure or maim. I can only imagine this to be a very personal crime. A person can only be charged with mayhem if he or she has intentionally, maliciously unlawfully removed or disfigured or rendered useless another person’s hand, finger, leg or ear and so on. This is a very serious felony charge and very much a personal crime that would require getting up close and personal with the victim.
Rape is defined as sexual intercourse without a person’s consent against their will. Rape is about control and a crime of great personal violence. Some states have expanded the definition of rape to include spousal rape and rape that was not forced but without consent. Lack of consent is a necessary element in all rape cases. Most states refer to rape as a sexual assault and there are four degrees of sexual assault. The laws known as shield laws were enacted in the 1970’s to protect the victim in a rape trial from her past being brought into the trial. I think this is important because it does not matter what type of past the victim has if she was violated and raped to the legal standard of rape then she was violated.
In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent. The actual ages for these laws vary greatly from state-to-state, as do the punishments for offenders. Many states just refer to statutory rape as rape, and do not necessarily require sexual intercourse but only sexual contact will qualify. All states have an "age of consent," or an age at which a person can legally consent to sexual activity and can then no longer be a victim of statutory rape. There are also differences in the severity of criminal offense based on the age difference between the adult and the minor. The personal crime of statutory rape can be a traumatic event for the minor involved or not a big deal depending on the individual situation. Some cases may involve a young couple only a few years apart in age that are in love and one set or both sets of parents get angry and want a legal remedy that will force the pair to separate. Other cases may involve an older person taking advantage of a young person and could possibly scar the young person for life. (Burrell)

Robbery and Burglary

Robbery is the taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation. Robbery is a crime of theft and can be classified as a larceny by force or threat of force. The elements of the crime of robbery include the use of force or intimidation and all the elements of the crime of larceny. The penalty for robbery is always more severe than for larceny. The force or intimidation must either precede or be contemporaneous with the taking to constitute a robbery. Violence or intimidation after the taking is not robbery. If, however, the force occurs so soon after the taking that it forms part of the same transaction, the violence is legally concurrent with the taking. Force or intimidation employed after the taking and merely as a means of escape is not a sufficient basis for a robbery charge. Burglary is the criminal offense of breaking and entering a building illegally for the purpose of committing a crime. To differentiate between these crimes I would say what sticks out is the breaking and entering into a building that goes along with the crime of burglary; this is not a required element in theft of robbery as it is in burglary. I don’t believe that I would make any changes to the laws regarding how the above crimes are punished. The different degrees of burglary are punished accordingly, for example a “simple burglary” is usually going to be a third degree burglary. The third degree is committed by a person knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building with an intent to commit a crime therein. When the same offense is committed with explosives or deadly weapons, or when it results in physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime, it is burglary in the first degree, for which there is a greater penalty.

Crime and Technology

An example of computer crimes is identity theft. Identity theft can be a devastating thing for anyone to go through and can have devastating effects that can last for years, with the individual having to clean up the criminals mess and reclaim their identity. I have never had to deal with this but can only imagine what a horrible ordeal it must be. High technology crimes are becoming more common a problem for law enforcement to deal with. Everyday patrol officers may encounter these high technology crimes by way of citizens reporting these crimes and having to take the initial reports. This is hard because there is not much that can be done regarding identity theft unless you know who the responsible individual is. Another technology crime could be “crashing” a computer remotely and having to deal with all the data on a personal computer being lost. I do not believe there is anything police can do regarding this crime. I have heard it mentioned in a previous class that hackers sometimes just crash people’s computers at random for no particular reason; this can be frustrating I am sure. The biggest challenge that law enforcement faces in the arena of technology crimes in my opinion is proving who committed the crime. I think that training can be provided in this area and improved upon, and of course as the technology advances the tools available to law enforcement will improve as well. Law enforcement has to constantly strive to stay one step ahead of the technologically advanced criminals that more than likely devote a good deal of their time to improving their criminal skills on the computer. As I have mentioned in previous classes I think it is not a bad idea to get these tech savvy criminals on our side whenever possible and it is not a greater threat to have them working for us.

Rape VS Statutory Rape

The definition of statutory rape is illegal sexual activity between two people when it would otherwise be legal if not for their age. In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent. The actual ages for these laws vary greatly from state-to-state, as do the punishments for offenders. Most states just refer to this as rape, and this usually means any sexual contact not just penetration. The word rape brings to mind a horrible violent act but according to the laws of most states it can be rape to for a young man age 18 to date and for example kiss and have contact with a 15 year old young lady. I have mixed feelings about this and don’t necessarily think that a young man should be labeled a sex offender for dating a girl slightly younger than him. The criminal act of rape impacts the criminal justice system by more volume of cases than there would be if we just recognized the actual criminal rapes, instead of the young people dating people that are still minors. In my opinion there is a huge difference between rape and statutory rape. The issue of consent is one thing to consider, some states have an age of consent which allows them to come to a certain age and then consent to sexual activity. It is not illegal to date someone who is a minor as long as there is no sexual contact; this is a good clean option for young people though not a very realistic option. Being the mother of 4 children 3 of which are girls I very much support abstinence, but when it comes down to it they will do what they choose and hopefully that is the right choice. I think it is very important to briefly teach our children the legal consequences of sexual contact with a partner that is under age or over eighteen.

One Flaw In Women

One Flaw In Women

Women have strengths that amaze men.
They bear hardships and they carry burdens,
but they hold happiness, love and joy.

They smile when they want to scream.
They sing when they want to cry.
They cry when they are happy
and laugh when they are nervous.
They fight for what they believe in.
They stand up to injustice.

They don't take "no" for an answer
when they believe there is a better solution.

They go without so their family can have.
They go to the doctor with a frightened friend.



They love unconditionally.
They cry when their children excel
and cheer when their friends get awards.

They are happy when they hear about
a birth or a wedding.
Their hearts break when a friend dies.
They grieve at the loss of a family member,
yet they are strong when they
think there is no strength left.
They know that a hug and a kiss
can heal a broken heart.

Women come in all shapes, sizes and colors.

They'll drive, fly, walk, run or e-mail you
to show how much they care about you.

The heart of a woman is what
makes the world keep turning.

They bring joy, hope and love.
They have compassion and ideas.
They give moral support to their
family and friends.

Women have vital things to say
and everything to give.

HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ONE FLAW IN WOMEN,
IT IS THAT THEY FORGET THEIR WORTH.

Criminal Liability

There is of course the defense of mental illness to pardon the defendant from culpability. Criminal liability, guilt can be attributed to an individual who acts “purposely,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” or “negligently.” Statutes give additional definition to these concepts and set forth which mental state applies to a particular crime. Another defense is involuntary intoxication, as a result of intoxication which is not voluntary, the actor at the time of the conduct lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to perform a material element of the offense, or lacked sufficient willpower to choose whether the person would do the act or refrain from doing it. I am not personally fond of this as a defense but I suppose that situation does happen. Another defense is that the subject was acting under duress, fearing harm for themselves or others and operating under the threat or reasonable fear of harm. Entrapment is another defense that suggests that the subject should not be punished because of the wrongdoing of the officer originates the idea of the crime and then induces the other person to engage in conduct constituting such a crime when the other person is not otherwise disposed to do so. Another defense is justification, whether the subject had the right to act such as a police officer acting within his job or use of force to protect one’s self or family, lesser of evils justification which required immediate action in an emergency situation. I think there may be a better way to handle criminal liability and how it is defended from a legal standpoint, there are many different defenses and the burden is on the state to prove the case so I believe the defendant usually have the upper hand if they are not guilty of the crime.

Mental illness in criminal defenses

To be found culpable or responsible for commission of a crime you have to be able to form the criminal intent require by law. Mental illness is a defense that though often misused is a very real situation for some people.
I believe a great example of mental illness is David Berkowitz “Son of Sam” he claimed to be getting instruction from a dog to kill people. This man was perfectly capable of driving around and making detailed plans to kill others but that does not necessarily make him capable of legal intent.
The legal definition for insanity defense is a legal concept that a person cannot be convicted of a crime if he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of insanity at the time of commission of the crime. The medical definition is unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning considered to be sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.
An eight-state study reported in the Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry in 1991 showed that the insanity defense was used in fewer than 1 percent of the cases of a representative sampling of the state courts. Only about a quarter of those insanity pleas were successful, even though 90 percent of defendants who made the pleas were diagnosed with a mental illness. And so the refinements and the controversy continue. According to JAMA, there are at least 100,000 insane people in this county. If they take to lives of crime, will they get away with murder?

Justification versus excuse

Justification is the act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning. To justify is to meet certain criteria to explain actions. One of these criteria is there rationale present to believe one was defending property or loved ones, is the act in question justified? What is the relevance of the actor's intent in assessing whether his conduct is justified? Justification is often calling in to question the lesser of evils, almost all western legal systems accept self defense as permissible and therefore being justification for preventing harm to one’s self or loved ones. A distinguishing feature of justificatory claims, most Western legal systems require that the actor know and act on the circumstances that allegedly justify his conduct. An excuse is a reason alleged for the doing or not doing a thing. This word presents two ideas differing essentially from each other. In one case an excuse may be made in, order to own that the party accused is not guilty; in another, by showing that though guilty, he is less so, than he appears to be. People are sometimes excused for acts that are ordinarily considered crimes either because they had no intention of doing wrong, or because they had no power of judging, and therefore had no criminal will. Claims of justification rest on norms of society as a whole that create exceptions to the prohibitions of the criminal law. Excuses are different. Excuses derive from norms directed not to the public, but rather to legal officials, judges, and juries, who assess the accountability of those who unjustifiably violate the law. Excusing a particular violation does not alter the legal prohibition. Recognizing mistake of law as an excuse does not change the law; if the excused, mistaken party were to leave the courthouse and commit the violation again, he would clearly be guilty.