Crime Statute Application
I selected the crime of Adultery, in the state of Arizona. It is illegal under Section 13-1408 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. section 13-1408). I chose this particular statute because I have always viewed adultery as morally wrong, but I never considered it to be criminal conduct. In this application, I examine the elements of crime and the issues that arise when discussing mens rea and actus reus, and how evidence for such conduct would be hard to obtain. I also consider whether the crime should be more of a civil liability concern, rather than criminal conduct, and how there may be issues with making the punishment more severe. Overall, there is not much room for discussion when thinking about the defense
…show more content…
section 13-1408). The conduct would not be criminal if it were two unmarried individuals cheating on a boyfriend, girlfriend, or partner, rather than a spouse. However, similar to the case of United States v. Feola, one would question the case in which the unmarried person did not know that the married person was married, and they would try to argue that because they did not know they were married, they should not be charged with the crime. Because the status of being married is an attendant circumstance, could the unmarried person argue this? Probably not, because we have already established that this crime holds strict liability, and the level of intent, existent or not, would not matter, and the individual would still be convicted (United States v. Feola, 1975). Another attendant circumstance laid out in the statute is that no prosecution can take place unless it was reported by the spouse of the adulterer.
The result would be the sexual act taking place, but also the spouse finding out and deciding to report the conduct because it is likely that this crime happens a lot but not as many people are convicted for it because the spouse never found out or never reported it. But, since not all crimes require a specific result to occur (Fradella, p. 67), one may be unsure of whether it needs to be proven that the adultery took place, or if lower levels of proof for the burden of persuasion would
Chapter four refers to specificity "as the scope of criminal law" (Bohm & Haley, 2014, p.97). These acts can be ruled not criminal if certain information is not proven to have been present when the crime was committed. The state rules for sex offenders that have been convicted of this crime be persecuted and their information made public. This reminds
Selina Ledezma Mrs. Kowalski-Garza CRIJ 3310-91L March 20, 2017 Miranda v. Arizona Brief Case Citation: 384 U.S. 436 Year Decided: 1966 Summary of the facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home in Phoenix, Arizona by two officers. He was taken to the police station where he was picked in a lineup by the victim of kidnapping and rape and later identified in a robbery case. After two hours of being interrogated Miranda confessed the crime. He was not advised of either his right to counsel, right to consult with counsel, or right to remain silent before his oral confession. Miranda was found guilty by the jury and convicted to 20 to 30 years in prison after the state court and prosecutor used his confession.
In this statutory analysis, I have chosen Arizona and Texas. I chose Arizona because it is my home and Texas because I have family and friends who reside there. I will be analyzing the statutes for each state to determine the similarities and differences between the two states while determining the actus reus, the mens rea, the causation, and determining the attendant circumstance if present. For my analysis, I researched both Arizona Revised Statutes and the Texas Penal Code .
The case of Miranda v. Arizona was on trial in Arizona’s Maricopa County Superior Court where the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was convicted of rape and kidnaping. After appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which affirmed the trail court conviction finding that Miranda’s constitutional rights had not been violated, Miranda than petitioned for the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court accepted to hear the case during their spring term of 1966. On February 28, March 1 and March 2, 1966, oral arguments for the case were heard; finally issuing its decision on June 13, 1966.
Many years ago, the first organized American Police Department system was started in Boston, in 1838. (Dempsey & Forst, 20120 p. 7). The Boston Police Department provided 24 hour service which, was funded by the New York legislature. Most of the policeman on the force had little to no training but that changed over time as the importance of law enforcement in society became more prominent. As time progressed so did the police department 's use of technology to better equip the officers with easier means to do their jobs.
“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. ”-Chief Justice Warren (landmarkcases.org). In March of 1963 an eighteen year old woman was assaulted. The suspect was interrogated without being read his rights.
Mr. Coker tied the male subject up and then proceeded to rape the male subject’s wife. Mr. Coker had taken the keys to the family car and proceeded to leave
1/ Miranda v Arizona – Decision No 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966) 1) On March 13,1963, Ernesto Miranda was found guilty for kidnapping and sexual assault. He was arrested inside of his home. He was taken into custody at Phoenix police station and put into an interrogation room where he was questioned by two police officers.
“Miranda v. Arizona” is a case that was presented in the high court in the United States of America. The case addresses four distinct cases that may be considered identical. Each of the four cases involved defendants who were interrogated by the police officers, prosecuting attorney or detectives where they were forced to give information about various crimes committed as they were identified as the suspects. Miranda, who was a Mexican immigrant, was identified by a Phoenix woman as one of the perpetrators who kidnapped and raped her. This resulted to an arrest that was followed by a police interrogation that was carried out for two hours (Vander, & Kamisar, 2013).
The United States does adhere and promote democratic values The United States adheres and promotes the democratic values upon which it was founded. The United States improved from when it was founded. Throughout history people have shown that the United states has expanded their democratic options profusely with promotions of democracy and adhering of this system of Government. Now, in the United States people are more free than ever.
Across the United States, there are three different levels of law enforcement agencies that uphold the justice system. These agencies are known as a municipal agency, a state agency, and a federal agency. In Arizona, these three different levels of law enforcement are clearly seen within the Glendale Police Department, Arizona Department of Public Safety, and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Even though each of the three law enforcement agencies have many similarities and differences amongst their roles, they all have the shared vision of working together to protect and defend the people in their jurisdiction. The Role of Each Agency
Since the earliest inception of a codified concept of crime and punishment the criminal justice system has been in a state of ever changing progress building on the philosophies of laws and their subsequent punishments from as far back as ancient times of human society. In this essay what will be looked at are the current policies and principals of punishment of the state of Texas with regards to specified and targeted crimes in particular the crimes of aggravated assault, and grand theft auto, as well it will be looked at to see if there are any new practices that may improve the current system that is in place or if any changes or modifications needs to be done. In centuries past the most common forms of punishment have their roots in
Dr. Theodore Millon created a system of personality assessment that consisted of eight domains of functioning. The domains are: behavioral domains (split into expressive acts and interpersonal conduct), phenomenological domains (split into cognitive styles, object representations, and self image), intrapsychic domains (split into regulatory mechanisms and morphologic organization), and biophysical domains which covers mood and temperament. Together, these domains come together to form a cohesive theory about how personality works, and how an individual will act on a day to day and situation to situation basis. This can be useful when assessing why people have done what they did, as in the case study provided to us today, the case of the adulterous County Sheriff.
In the United States’ states where adultery is federally penalized, a spouse has to
Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime.