Running head: CRIMINAL LAW 1

Criminal law:

Name:

Institution:
CRIMINAL LAW 2

1.

The issue that court had to decide on State v. Reynolds case was whether the suspension
of petition might lead to article 23 of New Hampshire constitution being violated. The
Supreme Court in turn transferred this petition without ruling since the suspension of the
defendant’s petition might violate both the federal and state constitution which is against
the ex post facto rules. Hence, the court held that holding of an application of the newer
law to the defendant’s petition would violate both article 23 and part as it decreases
opportunities’ frequency to violent offenders. In effect, the petition may not be
suspended. This suspension of petition could lead to a prisoner getting more punishment.
Also, it is correct that the retrospective application of the new law to petition of Reynolds
also leads to delays.

I agree with the ruling of the court completely. To begin with, the contention of the
Supreme Court is correct and the pleadings of the defendant are acceptable since
suspension of the petitioner automatically bleaches article 23 and part that is against the
ex-post facto laws. Moreover, the arguments of the state are not legitimate about
continuous payroll, as well as, punishment. Consequently, this ruling by the supreme was
the only prudent decision that would go a long way in avoiding violation of the sad part and
article. Thus, the supreme by ruling in this way was correct.

In the case of U.S. v. Hanousek, the main issue that the court was dealing with
was whether in order to ascertain that the defendant violated clean water
Act(U.S.C. 1319(c)(1)), negligently, statute needs a government to prove the
gross negligence. i.e., the conduct of the petitioner was gross deviation from
standard of care which any reasonable individual would basically observe in an
instance. Moreover, there was a question of if section 1319 (c)(1)(A) violates
the due process through permission of misdemeanor criminal penalty to e
imposed founded on the standard of ordinary rather than the gross negligence.

According to Section 1319 (c) (1) (A), any individual who violates33 U.S.C. 1321 (b) (3)
negligently should be punished through both imprisonment and fine or any of
them. Clean water Act’s provision is tailored to protect citizens at large for
pollution’s consequences. This case clearly falls in this category of the
public welfare legislation. As a consequence, the court held that the
conviction was on a basis of petitioner’s own negligence. Thus, the sort of
judgment that the district gave is confirmed, hence certiorari cannot be
given.

I agree with the court and its ruling. The petitioner cannot say that he was
merely a road master and hence did not know of clean water act laws. So long
CRIMINAL LAW 3

as he holds such a responsible post then he must adhere to such strict

regulations. Although it was an ordinary negligence, it was linked to criminal
negligence since the public at large suffered. Consequently, the decision of
the district court was correct and denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court
is justified also. In effect, simple negligence should be a basis for criminal
liability.

In the case of Tennessee v. Reeves, two middle school young girls Molly Coffman and Tracie Reeves,
plotted to kill a teacher with the poison. However, their mission was thwarted once another student,
whom had received information of the plan by one of them, told the teacher everything about it. As
they were not in a position of going on with their plan, the issues in this case was determining if the
action of the defendants in this scenario constitutes of a substantial step toward commission of a
second degree murder as the new statutes.

The court of appeal in this case stated that the action of the girls constituted of the substantial step
towards commission of a second degree murder. This court had the rationale that although the
defendants in this situation did not get the chance of placing poison on the teacher’s cup but only
brought the poison to a crime scene that they violated ten. Code Ann sections 19-12-10 of the "criminal
attempt" statute.

I agree that the girls in this case had already taken substantial steps of committing the targeted offense.
This is particularly considering the reality that since the girls had not just planned the crime but also
one of them tried to get another person I the attempted poisoning, hence almost managed to success in
their crime. The test that was used by the court in establishing if the substantial step was taken in this
case was a model case. Such a model case was incorporated to show the example of conducts that
could take the substantial step. There were those models which were employed to show the process of
crime commission, possession collection of the fabricated material used in commission of a crime either
near a contemplated place or in a crime area.

Inchoate offenses entail preparation of seeking to carry out another crime. One of the most common
examples of this is conspiracy. On the other hand, parties to crime have all to do with the people
voluntarily, knowingly and with a common interest taking part in commission of crime. In order for
liability to be read in these two theories of criminal liability the following conducts must be present.

First, there must be specific intent of committing the crime. An individual commits a crime, if with the
specific intent of committing it he or she does a specific act which amount to more than a mere
preparation which tends but fall short of effecting commission of an intended offense. Secondly, liability
can be read if an individual attempt the offense which might be aggravated, where her or his conduct
constitutes the attempt of committing an aggravated wrongdoing if the element which aggravates the
crime accompanies an attempt. The act of intent comprises of activities such as looking out for the
others who are committing a crime or providing the plans.
CRIMINAL LAW 4

Parties to a crime and inchoate crimes are seen as criminal without even an actual being done as long as
a harm which could have occurred except for the fact that something came out that would stop or
prevent it from happening.

Both excuses and justifications are defenses to civil, as well as, criminal
liability. However, they have some clear differences. A first cut at such
differences begins by acknowledging the reality that unlike third category of
the non-exculpatory policy defenses excuse a justifications are not
exclusively legal terms.
Justification means that, while a defendant in a particular situation
technically violates some prohibitions in a statute, he basically do nothing
wrong on a legal basis. This is due to the reality that the benefits emanating
from his or her behavior outweighs the harm. A perfect example in this case is
self defense. An individual is justified when she or he takes the life of
another if he accurately and reasonably believes that such a person presents
some immediate or real threat to his very own well being. Hence, an individual
is justified by meeting an aggressor’s force using similar force. Defending
the other is yet another justification scenario where an individual protected
could be justified in utilizing self defense. Necessity is yet another
example, where an individual must act so as to avoid some significant harm,
regardless of whether he or she violates the law through the act he engages
in. such a person may be justified if they had no alternative under a
particular circumstance.
On the other hand, excuse means that, whilst the conduct of a defendant is
wrong, she or he is not blameworthy morally. This means a scenario where a
defendant has some disabling condition. For instance, if a person was to hit another
when he is having a convulsion or seizure, then the person hitting the sick individual is not guilty of any
assault.
6

Duress occurs once an individual is deprived of her or his free will through means of threat to liberty or
violence. An individual who acts under duress may not be liable for some crimes that she or he commits.
Once an individual raises the duress defense, an accused admits to carrying out a criminal activity, but
asserts that such actions should be forgiven due to the reality that they carried out such action through
duress. However, for a successful utilization of defense of duress the following conditions must be
present:

1. There should be threat by the other person to severely injure or kill an individual acting duress.
The threat could also extend to the third party or a near relative.
2. There should be no realistic escape from a threat except through complying.
3. The threat source causing duress ought to be from other people
4. A person acting under the condition of duress should not be liable for exposing herself or
himself to duress.
5. The threat should be impending, present and imminent at a time that the criminal act is
done by an accused. This only means that the likely harm will happen instantly if an
individual acting under duress fails to comply.
6. An individual acting under this duress ought to believe that the said threat is genuine.
CRIMINAL LAW 5

7. There should be evidence that an offense was justified owing to the fact that the threat
was less immense in comparison to the offense.

Duress as a matter of policy is not applicable in the most serious crimes such as rape and murder as
people should not at any time be in a position of claiming that duress was so immense that they cause
murder or rape. Rape and murder are heinous crimes which regardless of the pressure on a person, she
or he must always be capable of retaining their free will to not rape or murder.

7
In the case of Vacco v. Quill, the issues that was brought to the supreme court was
whether the state of New York’s proscription on assisting suicide violates 14 th
amendment’s clause of equal protection. The Supreme Court’s rule echoed an absolute no
in regards to this issue. As such they reversed the decision of the court of appeal. The
supreme court upheld New York’s ban on the assisted suicide, claiming that the chronically
sick individuals have no right to doctor assisted suicide un their constitution’s clause of
equal protection.

Their key rationale behind this ruling was that the distinction between the patient’s
repudiation of life saving treatment, in addition to, assisting suicide is logical and
important. The distinction is deeply rooted in the intent, as well as, causation principles.
Once the patient refuses this treatment, then she or he directly dies by the way of a
disease causing death. On the other hand, once the doctor assists in the suicidal act then
she or he directly dies from the actions of the doctor. The patient who in a circumstance
commits suicide with the aid of a doctor necessarily has particular intention of ending her
or his own life, whilst the patient who discontinues or refuses treatment may not. Almost
all state administrating organs have drawn the line in the sand just the same as this one
reached in the state of New York. Furthermore, the court already drew the distinction
between causing death and letting an individual die. A patient’s right of being let alone and
refusing treatment is deeply rooted in the conventional freedom from any unwanted
touching and rights to body integrity. I believe that the distinction is valid owing to the
fact that the main grounds of the court’s division of the concept comprises of preserving
life and prohibiting intentional killing; maintaining the role of the physician; preventing
suicide, in addition to protecting the vulnerable people from any indifference prejudice,
financial and psychological pressure of ending their lives and finally avoiding the likely
slides towards euthanasia.

8
CRIMINAL LAW 6

I f a student was to leave class and hits and kill the criminal law professor on the way home, there are
some changing circumstances, as well as, facts which would makes this incident a capital murder,
negligent homicide involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.

To begin with, if such a student kills the criminal law professor by hitting him while on way to carry out a
terrorist activity particularly at the school, then such a student can be charged with the capital murder.
Likely punishment in such a case is death penalty.

If this student on the other hand was furious about the poor grade he obtained from this professor and
possibly see the professor taking a walk along a street, he purposely could attempt to run the professor
down in a heat of passion. This shows the situation through which a perpetrator is affected greatly by an
issue at hand that she or he really becomes disturbed mentally, in spite of having no intent of killing this
professor at first. In such a scenario, the student would then be accused of voluntary manslaughter.

If such a student was to go out with her or his friend to celebrate the good grades and then drinks a lot
before hitting this professor. Then he could be a charged with involuntary manslaughter where he/she
inadvertently kills the professor through hitting.

If this student also takes classes at a local college and then on this day he or she goes out celebrating the
term’s end with her friends and accidentally kills the professor through hitting him, the he may be
accuses of negligent homicide. Here, it should be noted that such a student was just show boarding for
the friends and was hence operating the car I unsafe manner prior to the accident.

Historically, the fundamental elements of rape as a crime were force, sexual penetration and lack of
consent. Raped women were anticipated to have resisted physically to the extreme of their power
otherwise the culprits would not be convicted of such conducts. Husbands during this time could have
sex with their spouses without their consent without being indicted of rape. Hence, husbands were
excluded from the charges of rape because wives were seen as property and hence had no separate
lawful existence outside the husband. In effect, wives were seen to have already given their consent to
any marital sexual encounter at a given time in marriage. This changed during the late 20 th century,
where even spousal rape then became an offense that was chargeable.

In this light, under the common law, rape is described as forcing a woman into sexual intercourse
without her consent or against her own will. This means that marital rape under common rape was non-
existent. On the other hand, rape as per the modern law is described as any sexually allied penetration
of another without their will or consent. Under modern law, rape law changes in such a way that rape
could be considered even in marital relation, through force or any other trauma means. The modern law
saw consent to be withheld under these circumstances:

1. The victim is not competent mentally, either temporarily of chronically.

2. The victim is under legal consent age
3. The victim is unable to resist physically or either state consent.
CRIMINAL LAW 7

4. The consent is forced. This could be verbal or physical coercion, or could also be situational.

To claim that rape statute is not gender specific only means that it does not really matter if a victim was
female or a male.

10

Example of false imprisonment

When armed robbers enter into a bank and tell all the clients to get down. And then

proceed to threaten to shoot them once they attempt to leave, this constitutes of false

imprisonment. Owing to the fact they know they may get killed when they act contrary to what

the robber said, they are held against their own will which is a fundamental element of false

imprisonment.

Differences between False imprisonment and kidnapping

Although false imprisonment and kidnapping are crimes involving holding individuals

against their will, they have different traits as per the federal and state laws. Kidnapping on one

hand is the sort of crime where victims are transported for substantial distance or either held in

isolation through force (Bacigal, 2004).On the other hand, false imprisonment is described as

confinement of people without their consent or legal authority.

Needless to say, false imprisonment is usually done through threat of force or actual

force. A key element in kidnapping is the forced restraint of victim under circumstances

exposing them to some grave bodily harm, but false imprisonment requires no victim

transportation element and holding them in isolation. Also the two crimes differ in that

kidnapping only necessities the liberty of victims to be affected substantially (Schmalleger &

Hall, 2013). False kidnapping when compared to kidnapping is relatively harmless and

inoffensive restraint of a person. It is a misdemeanor usually punishable by one year

CRIMINAL LAW 8

imprisonment. Kidnapping on the other hand might require facts to be shown, for instance, a

victim’s removal from a particular place to another.

Differences between False imprisonment and false arrest

Moreover, false imprisonment also differs from false arrest. A false arrest is perpetrated

by an individual asserting that she or he is acting according to the legal authority, while false

imprisonment is an unlawful confinement.

11

The citizen detainees in the US relating to the prevailing war on terrorism have a right of having their
very own detentions reviewed. Since the congresses suddenly changed the law on immigration in 1996,
both citizens and non-citizens are held in jails, as well as, detention centers either awaiting their
deportation or pretrial. In effect, the citizens have the right of having their detention assessed by the
United States’ Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the United States rarely gets the opportunity of
pronouncing on the frail balance between individual liberties and national securities. The Supreme Court
till now has not determined the due process standard that must be utilized in analyzing conditions, as
well as, abuse challenges by individuals in detention. As a consequence, it is the Supreme Court which
should review the detention of such detainees.

The non-citizen detainee possesses the same rights as the citizens. In fact, such detainees have equal
constitutional rights to decent treatment just like the citizens do. Just like the other detainees, non-
citizen detainees may be able to challenge the condition of confinement as the stipulation of 5 th
Amendment due process clause that protects all individuals in custody from the sort of conditions which
amounts to punishment. This fact is shown in the case of Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 237-
38 (1896).

12

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the police found 2 men engaging in sexual activity in
their home. Consequently, they arrested the two under the Texas statute which outlawed
this sexual conduct. The issue that the court had to deal with in this case was whether the
statute making two people engaged in intimate homosexual sex be considered to be
committing a crime violates the clause of due process.

The court found a violation of due clause in this scenario. The court relied on
conglomeration of the rights assumed to establish the right to privacy found in the case of
CRIMINAL LAW 9

Roe v. Wade. An implied privacy right exists to safeguard people from unwarranted
government intrusion. As a consequence, this court wrote that the private sexual act is
not an appropriate regulatable activity as far as the state is concerned. By invading
people’s lives in this manner, the court felt that it demeans their very existence, in
addition to, disallowing them seek out their destiny. I agree with the ruling of the court.
This is due to the fact that, in a way, this case was not all about the sexual conduct itself;
in fact, it was all about the sort of activities that the state could reasonably control once
people get engaged on activities revolving privacy of their very own homes. As a
consequence, the court had to hold that the personal activity in a person’s home is
generally a right and applicable law furthers no valid state interest in respect to limiting
of such an activity. Thus, the law in this case was considered void and invalidated. The
Supreme Court changed its ruling here based on the international and public criticism.

13

The rights of criminals are founded on the constitution’s bill of rights. In

this case, the right of the criminals comprises of assumption of innocence
till proved guilty, representation by the counsel, trial by a jury, right to
present witnesses, in addition to, a right to provide proof of one’s
innocence. As a consequence, the 5th amendment provides the accused people
with a right of not only refusing to implicate them but to also stand before
the grand jury. In effect, in order for the accused family members to be
considered guilt and thereby be paroled, the prosecution ought to convince the
judge or either the jury that they are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Soon as the jury returns with the guilty verdict, it is here that the rights
of an accused are disregarded. Furthermore, the 5th amendment guarantees
further that no individual should be accused two times for same crime, no
deprived of liberty, property, as well as, life without the due process of
law. This is the statement that such families could make when the parole
hearing is going on. The only constitutional issue that would emanate from
this case would be about a speedy trial, considering that the case has been
proceeding for 40 years.

14:

The 8th amendment should not bar admissibility of the victim impact evidence in penalty
phase of capital murder trial.

The 8th amendment bars unusual, as well as, cruel punishment. Owing to the reality that the
Supreme Court stipulates that adult’s capital punishment is neither unusual nor cruel, the
victim impact statement do not really allude to the 8th amendment. According to the
stipulations of the supreme court, the victim impact statements do not in any way violate
8th amendment as evident in the case of Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808.
CRIMINAL LAW 10

Besides, what is more significant is facts that are included in victim impact statement, in
addition to, being considered by the magistrate, were admitted to trial and evidence and
found true by the jury. Alternatively, it is an infringement of right to jury trial just as the
Supreme Court found in the case of Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker.

If the magistrate is not allowed by statute to take into consideration the impact of crime
on the victims during sentencing, the statement then may be unduly prejudicial to a
defendant. Its primary purpose could be making a judge feel remorseful for the victims,
thereby being forced to consider some factors which are not considered properly during
sentencing. For instance, the prosecution in the case of Gathers v. South Carolina, 490 U.S. 805
(1989), basically stated that the religious populous who regularly voted deserved murder in
comparison to the other citizens. The court stipulated that they cannot actually value the
lives of people like that. In this case, there is the argument that the introduction of
statement infringes the 14th amendment’s guarantee of a due process.
CRIMINAL LAW 11

References:

Schmalleger, F., & Hall, D. (2013). Criminal law today. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Bacigal, R. J. (2009). Criminal law and procedure: An overview. Clifton Park, NY:

Delmar Cengage Learning.