Crimes Are Statutory Offenses Essay

Crime is often described as socially constructed, which influences our understanding of who commits a crime. Firstly, labelling theorists argue that crime is a social construction based on the powerful’s reaction to certain behaviour, those who are deviant are people that have been labelled as such. Marxists claim the bourgeoise construct crime in order to criminalise the proletariat, get away with their own deviance and maintain their own dominance. Neo-marxists look at how moral panics create a social construction of crime and can criminalise certain groups. Finally, feminists, argue crime is constructed in a patriarchal way and that the criminal justice system is harsher to female offenders. Whereas others criticise these theories for

Criminal statutes are enacted by federal and local governments in order to deter criminal behaviors and activities in order to protect citizens. Laws and statutes were developed in order to ensure that citizens act in an appropriate manner or face the consequences of their actions. They also reflect expectations of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors that have been set for local, state, and federal governments.

To many Americans today, the country is a hostage-but not from oversea terrorism as one might expect to think. No today, we live in fear from our own children; and these are the same young people who we are entrusting the future of this great country with. According to the Department of Justice report released in November, thirty-eight percent of those arrested for weapons offenses in 1995 were under the age of eighteen (Curriden). In the same report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that in 1995, 3 out of every 100 eighteen-year-olds were arrested for weapons offenses. A rate three times higher than for males twenty-five to twenty-nine and five times higher than for males thirty to thirty-four (Curriden).

First and foremost, the meaning of crime is any act or omission of duty resulting in harm to society that is punishable by the state. On the face of it there is no clear definition of what those acts or omisions actually are. When a crime has been committed the prosecution has the 'standard of proof' to prove 'beyond resonable doubt' to a jury that the accused had committed the 'actus rea' and/or 'mens rea'. The Actus Rea refers to the guilty act and the Mens Rea refers to the guilty mind or the planning of the crime. During strict liability offences, mens rea doesn't have to be proven only the actus rea. This is because the act is enough to charge someone as the judge sees fit.

Another element is Specific Intent, which is a mental purpose, target or intention to accomplishing a specific damage or result by acting outlaw. The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to define a special state of mind that is mandatory, with a physical act, to constitute crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually means calculatedly or knowledgeably.

Prompt 1) Discuss and characterize the differences between committing a crime purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (be sure to use examples and to distinguish clearly, in particular, between acting knowingly and acting recklessly). Given this analysis, what might explain why we blame a purposeful crime more than a reckless one?

This, along with a lack of treatment, seemingly no outlet for his distress, and trying to maintain a facade would have all played a role in not just the events of that day, but the way they unfolded. The height of feeling worthless, contemplating suicide nearly all day, as well as many days prior to that, was bound to erupt in some illogical release because he has never been treated and/or given the tools to deal with his depressive symptoms or emotional instability.

Causes of crime are arguably criminology’s most important and largest research topic. In this process of research, criminologists and academics have used numerous theories in attempts to explain how and why people resort to crime (Ellis, Beaver, Wright, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to examine a case study first with the use of strain theories (ST), followed by social learning theory (SLT). The first section will involve a summary of the case of R v Mark Andrew HUGHES (2009) NSWDC 404 involving an outline of the offender’s personal life, of his crimes, and his punishment handed down by

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

As a general rule, crime involves combination of act and criminal intent. A crime is committed when it is acted upon with a criminal intent. An act of crime without a criminal intent is not a crime. Once an idea of a crime has been communicated and planned out it is considered a conspiracy. A conspiracy is a crime. The crime is justified due to

Crimes and Misdemeanors reveals a struggle between a man of little faith and the immoral path he has chosen. Judah a prominent figure in his community whom is highly regarded for his standing as a philanthropist and physician, reaches out for moral guidance from a respected pillar of the religious field and family friend. As his life begins to crumble as he tries to weigh the consequences of his infidelities to that of murder and the subsequent guilt in hopes of absolution. Eventually discovering that God’s eyes aren’t focused on the evils of the world ready to serve justice.

Good Morning, I’m Emma Mallory and this is my correspondent, Marlee McCormick. We are unflinchingly in favor of the resolved topic that, “In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system”. Violent felonies are classified as abusive crimes that include, rape or sexual assault, murder, domestic violence, robbery, and kidnapping. We strongly hold our beliefs that this case justifies the value of human safety. Any person no matter who they are deserves to be safe in any situation. If adolescents are not charged appropriately to match the crimes they have committed, this can threaten the safety of others. Overall, it is prerequisite that juveniles that have offended the law by committing violent felonies, face the consequences as adults.

In the final scene when Louis Levy speaks of the capacity of love I feel he is saying that we as humans have this natural need for an emotional attachment in order to feel complete as a person. Everyone on this earth is looking for love and acceptance and this starts from birth. A baby requires love, attention, physical touch and maternal nurturing along with biological needs in order to survive. This is carried on throughout out a person’s life. If one can look back as far as possible into their childhood they will come to find that love from another being is essential to growth because this will be the basis of what kind of adult you will grow

Victimless crimes, the illegal act(s) that involves consenting adults and lacks a complaining participant, have been the topic of heated debate for some time now (Kendall, 2014). This debate centers primarily on the question as to whether these acts should be crimes at all. The arguments take several forms. One of the controversies involves the importance of personal freedom versus society’s idea to uphold moral standards. A second issue addresses the problem of the conception of harm. People who stand on this side on this side of the argument raise questions as to whether victimless crimes are harmful not only to the participants but to others in society as well. More importantly, they ask whether such acts result in negative

A suspect can be convicted of many different crimes, but the crimes that are the most interesting are called inchoate offenses. An inchoate offense is a type of crime done by taking a illegal step to the commission of another crime. The inchoate offenses are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy ("Inchoate offense | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute", n.d.). Solicitation is one of bottom inchoate offenses, meaning that it does not take much for a suspect to be found guilty of solicitation. Prosecutors must be able to prove two things to be effective in convicting a suspect of solicitation ("Criminal Solicitation Law & Legal Definition", n.d.). The first thing a prosecutor must prove is that a person