Miranda V. AZ and AZ V. Fuliminante

I am going to provide a synopsis of the case of Miranda V. Arizona, and also the case of Arizona V. Fulminante. I will provide a comparative synopsis of these two cases, discuss final court rulings and the legal requirements for admissibility of statements and the applicability of those legal requirements to the above mentioned cases.
In the case of Miranda V. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. Police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged. His written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count. (Landmarkcases, 2009)
The case of Miranda V. Arizona comes down to the fact that the individual, Ernesto Miranda should have been informed of his rights at the time of his confession and because he was not that his confession should have been excluded from the trial. The case moved through the court system when Miranda was convicted in 1965 for kidnapping and rape on the basis of a written confession that was admitted into evidence despite defense objections that Miranda had not been informed of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent during the police interrogation. Then in 1965 as well the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld the conviction stating that Miranda’s rights were not violated at trial by allowing the confession. (Landmarkcases, 2009)

Finally in 1966 the case of Miranda landed at the Supreme Court of the United States, It was then that the Supreme court of the United States reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and held that statements obtained from defendants during interrogations in police-dominated atmosphere without full warning of right to remain silent and right to counsel violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and were inadmissible.
The legal requirement for admissibility of the statements in this case of Miranda V. Arizona was not met, while any suspect is in custody and undergoing a custodial interrogation they must be informed of their rights. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to not incriminate one’s self and the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel even if the individual cannot afford a lawyer. The statement made by Miranda cannot be considered admissible because Miranda was not informed of these rights prior to his confession, had Miranda been informed he may have requested a lawyer or remained silent.
In the case of Arizona V. Fulminante, the defendant Fulminante was the stepfather to 11 year old Jeanne who was found murdered in Mesa Arizona in the dessert shot twice in September of 1982. Fulminante had reported the young girl missing to the Mesa police department two days before her body was found. Fulminante's statements to police concerning Jeneane's disappearance and his relationship with her contained a number of inconsistencies, and he became a suspect in her killing. When no charges were filed against him, Fulminante left Arizona for New Jersey. Fulminante was later convicted in New Jersey on federal charges of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Fulminante was imprisoned he became friends with another inmate, Anthony Sarivola. Sarivola, a former police officer, had been involved in loan sharking for organized crime, but then became a paid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While at Ray Brook, he masqueraded as an organized crime figure. After becoming friends with Fulminante, Sarivola heard a rumor that Fulminante was suspected of killing a child in Arizona. Sarivola then raised the subject with Fulminante in several conversations, but Fulminante repeatedly denied any involvement in Jeneane's death. During one conversation, he told Sarivola that Jeneane had been killed by bikers looking for drugs; on another occasion, he said he did not know what had happened. Sarivola passed this information on to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who instructed Sarivola to find out more.
Sarivola said that he knew Fulminante was "starting to get some tough treatment and whatnot" from other inmates because of the rumor. Sarivola offered to protect Fulminante from his fellow inmates, but told him, "`You have to tell me about it,' you know. I mean, in other words, `For me to give you any help.'". Fulminante then admitted to Sarivola that he had driven Jeneane to the desert on his motorcycle, where he choked her, sexually assaulted her, and made her beg for her life, before shooting her twice in the head. (Findlaw, 2010)
Fulminante was tried and convicted of his stepdaughter’s murder when his attorney tried to suppress the confession and the court ruled that it was admissible. He was sentenced to death. Fulminante appealed, arguing, that his confession to Sarivola was the product of coercion and that its admission at trial violated his rights to due process, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After considering the evidence at trial as well as the stipulated facts before the trial court on the motion to suppress, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the confession was coerced, but initially determined that the admission of the confession at trial was harmless error, because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence against Fulminante. The Arizona Supreme Court ordered that he be retried without the confession being admissible. The Arizona Supreme Court found a credible threat of physical violence unless Fulminante confessed. In the Arizona Supreme Court's initial opinion, in which it determined that harmless error analysis could be applied to the confession, the court found that the admissible second confession to Donna Sarivola rendered the first confession to Anthony Sarivola cumulative. In a divided opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the state Supreme Court’s finding that Fulminante might have been subjected to violence was sufficient to establish a finding of coercion, and therefore affirmed the reversal. In addition, the Court held that a harmless error analysis should nonetheless be applied to any allegedly coerced confession. In either case, the Court held that a new trial was warranted. (Findlaw, 2010)








References

Landmark cases. (2009). Miranda v arizona . Retrieved from http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/background3.html
Findlaw, . (2010). Arizona v. fulminante, 499 u.s. 279 (1991) . Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=279

People always come into your life for a reason, a season, or a lifetime. When you figure out which it is, you know exactly what to do.

People always come into your life for a reason, a season, or a lifetime.

When you figure out which it is, you know exactly what to do.

..

When someone is in your life for a REASON,

it is usually to meet a need you have expressed outwardly or inwardly.

They have come to assist you through a difficulty,

or to provide you with guidance and support,

to aid you physically, emotionally, or even spiritually.

They may seem like a godsend to you, and they are.

They are there for the reason you need them to be.

...

Then, without any wrong doing on your part or at an inconvenient time,

this person will say or do something to bring the relationship to an end.

...

Sometimes they die. Sometimes they just walk away.

Sometimes they act up or out and force you to take a stand.

What we must realize is that our need has been met, our desire fulfilled; their work is done.

The prayer you sent up has been answered and it is now time to move on.

...

When people come into your life for a SEASON,

it is because your turn has come to share, grow, or learn.

They may bring you an experience of peace or make you laugh.

They may teach you something you have never done.

They usually give you an unbelievable amount of joy.

Believe it! It is real! But, only for a season.

And like Spring turns to Summer and Summer to Fall,

the season eventually ends.

...

LIFETIME relationships teach you lifetime lessons;

those things you must build upon in order to have a solid emotional foundation.

Your job is to accept the lesson, love the person/people (anyway);

and put what you have learned to use in all other relationships and areas in your life.

It is said that love is blind but friendship is clairvoyant.

Thank you for being part of my life.

Search and Seizure

The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not scribe those words with the automobile in mind. The issues involving the seizure and search of automobiles and their occupants were, thus, addressed by the Supreme Court in their constitutional interpretations recorded in case law. With the advent of the automobile in 1914 through the turn of the new millennium, the easy mobility of the automobile and its operation on public roads has influenced the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution. The issue of privacy in an automobile is, therefore, considered to be dramatically diminished. These factors have played an important role in the eyes of the court.
Police officers do not need a warrant to search a vehicle as long as the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle may contain contraband or evidence of a crime. Probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. This can be almost anything depending on that individual officer’s beliefs, bias, preferences or tendency to racially profile individuals. It is my opinion that officers do indeed “find” probable cause if they decide that they need to investigate further for whatever reason. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. The issue here lies in what some officers may or may not label as probable cause.
Search and seizure is not a bad thing as long as it is handled properly by the arresting officer. When officers fail to go by the book and exercise good judgment not only are they leaving their department open for liability they are also violating the rights of individuals. Another repercussion of bad policing is in the form of negative publicity. When officers make bad choices and decide to search a vehicle and they have no legitimate reason it creates negative publicity for the department and affects public opinions of police in general.

Reasonable suspicion and so forth

Define Reasonable Suspicion, Probable Cause, and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Also explain what authority each level of information gives government.
Reasonable Suspicion:
To conduct a Terry search, or a stop and frisk, police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch, but less than probable cause.
Probable Cause:
In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. This is the standard that must be met by the prosecution.

HOPE

God doesn't give you the people you want, He gives you the people you NEED- To help you, to hurt you, to leave you,to love you and make you into the person you were meant to be.

Dear God: The lady (ladies) reading this is beautiful, classy, and strong, and I love her. Help her live her life to the fullest. Please promote her and cause her to excel above all her expectations. Help her shine in the darkest places where it is impossible to love. Protect her at all times, lift her up when she needs you the most, and let her know when she walks with you, She will always be safe.

Blessings,
Jamie

Bring the rain

I can count a million times
People asking me how I
Can praise You with all that
I've gone through
The question just amazes me
Can circumstances possibly
Change who I forever am in You

Maybe since my life was changed
Long before these rainy days
It's never really ever crossed my mind
To turn my back on you, oh Lord
My only shelter from the storm
But instead I draw closer through these times
So I pray

Bring me joy, bring me peace
Bring the chance to be free
Bring me anything that brings
You glory And I know there'll
be days When this life brings me pain
But if that's what it takes to
praise You Jesus, bring the rain

I am yours regardless of the clouds that may
loom above because you are much greater than
my pain you who made a way for me suffering
your destiny so tell me whats a little rain

[1st Chorus]

Holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
is the lord God almighty
is the lord God almighty
I'm forever singing

[2nd Chorus 2x]

everybody singing
Holy holy holy
you are holy
you are holy

4 th amendment and the exclusionary rule

What would happen if the Fourth Amendment did not exist? The fourth amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This means security in my opinion, of the person in their home mainly. If the fourth amendment did not exist, what would happen? In my opinion the fourth amendment might as well not exist thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act which by the way is you disagree with it you are not an extreme nutjob, anyways, the Act ensures that the government now does have the ability if they so choose to bypass the fourth amendment and do as they please. The Patriot Act increases the government’s surveillance powers in four areas:
1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
The Act also creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups




The exclusionary rule, stemming directly from the Fifth Amendment, states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. This principle gained its constitutional roots back in 1921 in the case of Gouled vs. United States. This Supreme Court held that although the government could seize contraband, it could not seize property simply to use as evidence. There are certain cases where evidence from warrantless searches is admissible, such as when something is in plain view, at an airport, during an arrest, or when there is no time to obtain a warrant. The exclusionary rule prevents the police, in their zealousness to solve crimes, from violating the civil liberties of American citizens. Warrants can only be issued by judges if there is "probably cause" to believe that evidence of wrongdoing will be found. Warrants must contain the date, location, and time of a search, what is expected to be found, and the grounds for believing that such an object will be found in the place indicated. Many feel that these institutional safeguards are what distinguish America from less civilized nations. They maintain that our civil liberties must be protected above all else. The problem in some peoples' minds is that a person should not have contraband in his/her possession to begin with. If a police officer or investigator uncovers contraband in an unconstitutional manner, they feel that there is no reason to pretend that the material does not exist. They maintain that criminals all too often escape justice by loopholes such as this. Some Americans are willing to sacrifice some of their Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security.

Criminal Procedure Policy

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan

I am going to discuss due process and various crime control models relating to criminal procedure policy. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment will be explained regarding their role in criminal procedure policies as well. Lastly I will discuss the Bill of Rights and the relevance to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state. Due process is protected as part of our Fifth Amendment rights. Under the Due process model the most important function of criminal justice should be to provide due process or fundamental fairness under the law. The focus in this model is aimed on the defendant’s protected rights under the Bill of Rights and the belief is that police power should be highly limited to prevent oppression of the individual person. The government shouldn't hold a person guilty solely on the basis of the facts; a person should be found guilty only if the government follows legal procedures in its fact-finding. The due process model has been referred to as an “obstacle course”. (Cliff’s notes 2009)
The Crime control model suggests that the repression of crime should be the most important function of criminal justice because order is a necessary condition for a free society. Also, this model favors victim’s rights over the rights of the defendant, and anything that complicates matters for police should be eliminated. The accused is often thought of as guilty already in this model and the justice system is thought of as a conveyor built of justice, swiftly moving the defendants along to their case disposition. The main objective of the criminal justice process should be to discover the truth or to establish the factual guilt of the accused. (Cliff’s notes 2009)
The crime control model has more of a conservative basis than that of the due process model which has a liberal value to it. The law can only extend its arms so far. They cannot abuse their powers and must keep in mind that people have the right to a reasonable amount of privacy under the Constitution. There is a delicate balance in trying to respect the individual’s privacy and rights that we all have as United States citizens and also keeping the public safe at the same time.
Crime control model is based on factual guilt whereas the due process model is based on actual guilt. The Crime Control Model seems to be run like a dictatorship. It seems like a method that may have started out with good intentions only to not work out that way in the end. Within the Crime Control Model there is no innocence until proven, and the police and prosecutors are always deemed to be right. Justice seems to hang on the edge of impeding on civil rights violations as well as many and freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. (Misha, 2005)
The Fourteenth Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment means a lot of different things for different people. For some people it justifies same sex marriage, for others it holds a more conservative meaning. Personally I interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as a guarantee put in place by our founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that grants individuals who are citizens the rights to be secure. Basically that being a lawful citizen should allow us the rights to be safe and secure in the knowledge that due process and equality are on our side and we may not be unfairly subjected to radical action by law enforcement or any member of the criminal justice system.
The Fourth Amendment is The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This should always be upheld and not taken for granted or superseded by things such as the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Fifth Amendment is no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Sixth Amendment is In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Both models that I have mentioned are effective in the criminal justice system in their own ways and both bring positive and negative aspects to the criminal justice system. I believe that it is never acceptable to treat criminals or defendants as second class citizens as we all have certain rights as human beings. The uniform treatment should always be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, and ideally police officers should not pass judgment on the individual before he is give a fair trial. Unfortunately things do not always happen in a fair and correct way. That is why the Constitution and The Bill of Rights are so important to have and preserve as a guideline to basic rights that we stand for in this country. We cannot give up our freedom for the promise of false security, nor can we treat those citizens that choose to break the laws inhumanely, that would not say much about us as a country. Justice can be served in a honest righteous way.

Victims rights

“Evil requires the sanction of the victim.” Ayn Rand

A victim is defined as anyone who is harmed by another person. The victim is sometimes swindled or tricked, harmed or killed, deprived of their belongings, there are many ways a person can become a victim. Victims have historically played some type of role in the criminal justice system.
The Modern Crime Victims’ Rights Movement began more than 30 years ago and aspired to improve the treatment of crime victims in the criminal justice system. This Movement has since evolved into “one of the most successful civil liberties movements of recent times.” Since 1973 thirty-three states have amended their constitutions to include rights of crime victims. These rights include, the right to information, the right to be present at criminal justice proceedings, the right to dues process and the ability and right to be heard at criminal proceedings. Victims also have the right to be compensated monetarily for the loss that was a result of the crime that they were the victim of, the right to protection and privacy for the victim and their family. The Victims' Assistance Legal Organization (VALOR) became prominent as its founder, Frank Carrington, helped to develop and promote civil litigation on behalf of crime victims. (NCVLI, 2009)
The victim’s rights movements in the United States have brought about some important and significant changes worth mentioning. The development of a field called Victim logy was established by these movements and the introduction of state victim compensation programs. The rise of activism and the woman’s movement accompanied the victim’s movement. The interest in victim logy correlated with increasing concern about crime in America in the late 1960s. The crime wave of the time led to the formation of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1966, which conducted the first national victimization surveys that, in turn, showed that victimization rates were far higher than shown in law enforcement figures – and that many non-reporting victims acted out of distrust of the justice system. (Young , & Stein , 2004)
The idea that the state should provide financial reimbursement to victims of crime for their losses was initially propounded by English penal reformer Margery Fry in the 1950s. It was first implemented in New Zealand in 1963 and Great Britain passed a similar law shortly thereafter. Victim compensation and reimbursement is a part of restorative justice in some ways to attempt to set right the victim that has been wronged and monetarily pay them back. Restorative justices generally comes directly from the criminal not through the state.
Parents of Murdered Children were founded by Charlotte and Robert Hullinger in 1978 in the aftermath of the murder of their daughter by her ex-boyfriend. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was co-founded in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat offender drunk driver, and by Cindi Lamb, whose infant daughter was rendered a quadriplegic by a repeat offender drunk driver. According to Cindi Lamb, “Probably one of the foremost strategies is giving the victim a face, and the face of the victim was [in her case, her quadriplegic infant daughter] Laura Lamb. She was the poster child for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, because even though she couldn't move, she moved so many people.” The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was established in 1984 to help find missing children and provide support to their families. (Young , & Stein , 2004)
Restorative justice is intended to be a process that heals the victim and is personal because it comes from the offender, the person who committed the wrongdoing against the victim to begin with. In 1974, LEAA grants to the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department and then the Indianapolis Police Department helped open this new sector of the movement. Others followed suit. Many of the police-based programs were inspired by the work of two men. Victim’s advocates are a fixture at almost all agencies now. The victim’s advocates are trained individuals that usually have a heart for assisting victims that have been traumatized by the offender.
The victims of crimes now have a voice and an advocate; there are many ways to deal with the aftermath of being a crime victim. There are agents and caring individuals willing to help victims and there are also the civil courts that will assist in seeking monetary awards for the victims of a crime. The criminal justice system has embraced the opportunity to help make the victim whole again in my opinion.

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.