Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
Mencken states that this is another point that is uncertain and can be argued. Those who are for capital punishment assume that the only reason capital punishment is wanted is to deter crime. This is in fact, not true. It is obviously one of the aims of punishment but not the only one. “They believe that we simply hang or electrocute A in order to alarm B so he will not kill C” (Mencken 145).
The use of bait cars in our community have been a problem. Criminals want to say that it is entrapment. I feel that if you brake the law, you’ve done wrong. The time, day, or even the situation should not be looked at, but the crime that was committed. It should not matter if I left my keys in the car, or if the police left their keys in a bait car, if stolen it is wrong.
Torts Outline Geistfeld—Spring 2005 1) Intentional Torts a) Battery: i) Elements (1) A acts, (2) Intending to cause (a) Harmful contact with P or (b) Contact with P that is offensive and (dignitary harm—not always recognized) (3) A’s act causes such contact. ii) Difference between battery and negligence—negligence is when the D has wrong the P by failing to take sufficient care to avoid harming her. iii) Intent: will have to rely on circumstantial evidence, since mental states are not observable. (1) First issue is motive, but it generally does not matter, since why you did it is not relevant. We’re thinking about rules that govern interactions—objective rather than subjective standard.
This includes any verbal, written, telephonic, audio or video recorded information. Both ethical codes assert that the counselor and the clients should agree and set the limits of confidentiality. The counselors are also not permitted to share clients’ confidential information among themselves unless the client has given his or her consent. Both ethical codes also provide that records of the counseling proceedings should be kept in a secure location where they will not get into the wrong hands. One major contrast in the area of confidence is that; while the ACA ethical codes allow the counselor to immediately disclose client’s information on the issue of a subpoena, AACC ethical codes on the other hand provide that the counselor shall not disclose the information immediately but shall first give the client an opportunity to consult with his or her
You have chosen to avoid me and bring me to court without any warning, “where the law requires one to bring those who are in need of punishment, not instruction.” In this clarification from the Apology Socrates is stating that he is not persuading others to become evil. He is not converting others into wickedness. Why would he put himself into a situation that will harm him? If he is corrupting the youth he is doing it without the intention of harming others or himself. It was his accuser’s responsibility such as Meletus to approach him about the matter and warn
Acts of Vigilantism Luis Hernandez and the Suspected Car Thief Chris Soriano Do you think the individual made the best decision possible given the circumstances? In the Luis Hernandez case, I feel that he was trying to do the right thing for everyone within the community. He only meant to hold the thief there until the police arrived. Since things got out of control, Luis felt threatened (I’m sure) so he did what he believed was the right thing to do. He could have gotten hurt or possibly even killed in this incident.
Physical intervention may only be used upon ensuring safeguards are in place for the member of staff and also the person involved and when social and mechanical intervention is not sufficient . Moderate risk to prevent danger to others should be expected but physical intervention may not be used if there is a substantial risk of injury or it conflicts with any individual care plans in place. Holding or restraining the service user should only involve contact with robust areas of the body – i.e. arms, legs and torso. It should not involve pressure against a joint, holding by the neck, hair, fingers or any sexual area.
Opportunity theorists reject the notion that criminals are pushed and pulled into criminal behavior. Rather, these theorists assert that criminal offenders are consciously thinking individuals who actively choose to partake in criminal activities in their everyday normal lives. Opportunity theorists seek to explain why criminals choose to commit a crime in one situation and not another. This perspective is what they call an “opportunity theory” Opportunity theories wager that no crime would be committed unless there was an open and present opportunity to commit the criminal act. One approach that opportunity theorists seek in preventing crime is what is known as the routine activity theory.
Thinking about it more, I realized that hate-crimes legislation doesn't aim to punish the actual crime, but rather the motive (or thoughts) behind it. That's smacks of being more than a little Orwellian to me, besides being something that's very difficult to prove. If someone is continually spouting hateful speech, there's a pretty good chance you can figure out that their motive for a crime might be related to that hate. But what about someone who doesn't give any