Vickie V. Arnie's Case

487 Words2 Pages
1) Because the state could not prove that Arnie intentionally set the fire, he was acquitted from the crime. Also, as a victim of business damage, Vickie was awarded with $150,000 because her store was not involved with any kind of actions and she could blame Arnie for damaging her property. The result is that Arnie would lose both of his insurance claims on the two-family house and $150,000 damage to Vickie’s property damages. This is a civil suit case between Arnie and Vickie, so Vickie has all the evidence to press charges against Arnie. 3) The court’s ruling is just against David Lee Nagel by not letting him out of the mental hospital. Due to David’s past violence, no one could guarantee that he will not do it again. If the court were to release him, they are endangering the public and putting citizens in danger of being brutally assaulted. The rationale of treating an insane defendant is that an insane person has all the rights because he is not to be charged of something that is considered to be non-intentional and he will be acquitted from intent of killings. I find the theory to be non-persuasive because the psychiatrist can’t and won’t be able to prove that David is no longer a danger. The brutality of the crime should be considered in the decision regardless because he allegedly took both of his grandparents’ lives. We are dealing with LIVES here and…show more content…
By structuring, the bank will earn enormous sums and will strive to filter their profits back into the flow of commerce so that their crimes go undetected. This is the reason why the Congress undid the ‘Ratzlaf’ law, to punish those who run away from criminal activities. Money Laundering will most likely to harm the economy and benefit criminals and these criminals are hard to be detected. Therefore, the Congress’s decision on changing the law was justified because it could’ve crashed the
Open Document