Point 1. The collected evidence ought to be suppressed for failure to issue Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were made mandatory by the Supreme Court to protect the citizenry from hard police interrogation tactics and forced confessions. However, when a private citizen becomes the interrogator outside, the application of Miranda becomes less strict. The Constitution does not restrain a private citizen in the same ways as law enforcement, unless that citizen is acting as an agent of law enforcement.
[concluding sentence] Because of these behaviors in certain situations, how exactly would this law be enforced? It would be a waste of time. First of all, as with other laws, numerous people can’t recall or some wouldn’t know that a bystander law was legislated. Furthermore, since people may not think of the law as their initial response, they might not even help victims at all. In fact, the authorities would have to find and prove that a specific person was a bystander in any given situation.
Giving detailed information, and tell the authorities what Lora said about the sexual abuse as well. What are the possible outcomes of the different options? #1) Lora can choose to take your advice and tell or she could choose to keep quiet. Either way you will not know what happened and you still fail to report which you are mandated to do. It can be held against you license and in court.
However, the type of questioning that ensues must be in-line with this tone and at no point should the interviewee be tipped off that they might be considered a suspect. The line of questioning appears to not have been neutral and a bias of guilt may have existed from the interviewers. There is concern for the intent of the interview as it appears as though a couple of the interviewers went in with the purpose of obtaining a confession,
1. Everything you tell a #mediator is #confidential—mediators may not testify in court in cases they have mediated, and they will not disclose statements you make to the other party if you request it. 2. If you are involved in a #probate dispute with your #family, schedule #mediation to save #money and #time. 3.
The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures
People who use the money they receive on things not necessary for their families constitutes as abusing their aid. Lawmakers and the public alike state that drug testing might be beneficial to prevent tax money from being funneled into illegal activity it does not guarantee that these people will not spend their money on other legal recreational activities and substances. Finally, lawmakers have yet to determine what the restriction and punishments should be for those who can not or have not passed their drug tests. The degree of punishment that would be indicative of a possible rehabilitation of the individual without also punishing the children of that home (Pollack,2006). Each of these reasons is a primary cause of the controversy that have prevented most states from enforcing drug testing before receiving benefits.
Personally I am against having set speed limits. Why? Because I feel that having set speed limits is yet another way for law enforcement to go after people. Say you get pulled over for speeding. You go to court to defend yourself but, what’s really going to happen?
The accused may know that he never had any mens rea but it is tough for him to prove the absence of the same. Taking the earlier example of a person being accused for stalking a woman through her facoobok profile, the accused may know he doesn’t have any mens rea but there is no way, guidelines or standards with the help of which he can prove there wasn’t any malicious intent.. Secondly the prosecution that has greater access to resources than the accused to prove both actus reus as well as mens rea to establish guilt of the former. Now in the case of a laws like voyeurism or stalking it is consent or the act of disinterest respectively which play a decisive role in terming an accused guilty. Both these acts are related to the actions of the victim i.e to show disinterest in case of being stalked and no consent of being viewed while carrying out an act of privacy. When these deciding factors are in the control of the victim then the onus to prove the presence of act also should be on them.
The defense counsels can argue against the safeguard of accused before they are proved guilty with support of constitutional safeguards. The law enforcement officers cannot harass the accused or defame the accused because they are protected by the amendments in the constitution. The 4th Amendment states that unless there is warrant the house or accused cannot be searched. The law enforcement officers need to take permission before arrest or searching the accused. Due to this amendment in the constitution the adult criminal can get relief before they are proved guilty.