DOCSLIB.ORG

SENTAC Benchbook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SENTAC Benchbook SENTAC Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission Benchbook 2020* *INCLUDES RELEVANT LEGISLATION OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 150th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Benchbook 2020 1 SUMMARY OF PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCES Crime Classification Presumptive Sentence Statutory Page Ref. Felonies Class A (Other than Murder) 15 yrs @ Level V 15 yrs. to Life 28 Class B 2 to 5 yrs (1st 2 yrs @ Level V) 2 to 25 yrs 31 Class C (Violent) Up to 30 m @ Level V up to 15 yrs 37 Class C (Nonviolent) Up to 1 yr @ Level V up to 15 yrs 41 Class D (Violent) Up to 2 yrs @ Level V up to 8 yrs 43 Class D (Nonviolent) Up to 12 m @ Level II or III up to 8 yrs 47 Class E (Violent) Up to 15 m @ Level V up to 5 yrs 49 Class E (Nonviolent) Up to 12 m @ Level II up to 5 yrs 53 Class F (Violent) Up to 9 m @ Level V up to 3 yrs 57 Class F (Nonviolent) Up to 12 m for Title 11; up to 3 yrs 60 Up to 18 m for Title 16 @ Level II Class G (Violent) Up to 6 m @ Level V up to 2 yrs 64 Title 16, §§4767,4768: 3-9 m @ Level V Class G (Nonviolent) Up to 12 m @ Level II up to 2 yrs 67 Misdemeanors Class A (Violent) MA1 Up to12 m @ Level II up to 1 yr 72 Class A (Escape) MA2 Up to 3 m @ Level IV up to 1 yr 74 Class A (Property) MA3 Up to 12 m @ Level I up to 1 yr 75 Class A (Order/Decency) MA4 Up to 12 m @ Level I up to 1 yr 77 Class A (Controlled substances) 1st offense 12m @Level II up to 1 yr 80 Class B Fine, Costs & Restitution up to 6 m. 81 Unclassified Fine, Costs & Restitution up to 30 d 83 Violations Fine, Costs & Restitution $0 to $345 85 Habitual Criminal Up to Life Up to Life 143 Violation of Probation 1 Level Higher 1 Level Higher 156 SUMMARY OF ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY GUIDELINES Crime Classification Presumptive Sentence Acceptance of Responsibility Page Guideline Felonies Class C (violent) Up to 30 mos. @ Level V Up to 22 mos. @ Level V 37 Class C (non-violent) Up to 1 yr. @ Level V Up to 9 mos. @ Level V 41 Class D (violent) Up to 2 yrs. @ Level V Up to 18 mos. @ Level V 43 Class D (non-violent) Up to 12 mos. @ II or III Up to 9 mos. @ II or III 47 Class E (violent) Up to 15 mos. @ Level V Up to 11 mos. @ Level V 49 Class E (non-violent) Up to 12 mos. @ Level II Up to 9 mos. @ Level II 53 Class F (violent) Up to 9 mos. @ Level V Up to 7 mos. @ Level V 57 Class F (non-violent) Up to 12 mos. @ L II for T Up to 9 mos. @ L II for T 11 60 11 Up to 14 mos. @ L II for T 16 Up to 18 mos. @ L II T 16 Class G (violent) Up to 6 mos. @ Level V Up to 4 mos. at Level V 64 Class G (non-violent) Up to 12 mos. @ Level II Up to 9 mos. @ Level II 67 Misdemeanors Class A (violent) Up to 12 mos. @ Level II Up to 9 mos. @ Level II 72 Class A (escape) Up to 3 mos. @ Level IV Up to 2 mos. @ Level IV 74 Class A (property) Up to 12 mos. @ Level I Up to 9 mos. @ Level I 75 Class A (order/decency) Up to 12 mos. @ Level I Up to 9 mos. @ Level I 77 Class A (con. sub.) Up to 12 mos. @ Level II Up to 9 mos. @ Level II 80 Benchbook 2020 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF OFFENSES 5 INTRODUCTION 21 SENTAC STATEMENT OF POLICY 26 MEMBERS OF THE SENTAC ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION 31 SUMMARY OF PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCES CLASS A FELONY 32 CLASS B FELONY (VIOLENT) 36 CLASS B FELONY (NON-VIOLENT) 42 CLASS C FELONY (VIOLENT) 43 CLASS C FELONY (NON-VIOLENT) 47 CLASS D FELONY (VIOLENT) 49 CLASS D FELONY (NON-VIOLENT) 53 CLASS E FELONY (VIOLENT) 56 CLASS E FELONY (NON-VIOLENT) 58 CLASS F FELONY (VIOLENT) 62 CLASS F FELONY (NON-VIOLENT) 64 CLASS G FELONY (VIOLENT) 68 CLASS G FELONY (NON-VIOLENT) 70 CLASS A MISDEMEANORS I.) Violent (MA1) 76 II.) Escape (MA2) 77 III.) Property (MA3) 78 IV.) Order & Decency (MA4) 81 V.) Controlled Substances (MA5) 85 CLASS B MISDEMEANORS 86 UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANORS 88 VIOLATIONS 91 TITLE 21 AND TITLE 23 OFFENSES 92 SUMMARY OF DRUG OFFENSES 95 AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS 111 QUALIFYING UNDERLYING OFFENSES FOR TITLE 11 SECTION 1105 116 SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE 117 MODIFICATION DUE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL ILLNESS, INJURY, OR INFIRMITY 117 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES 118 SPECIAL CATEGORIES: Domestic Violence 118 Escape 119 Juveniles Being Sentenced as Adults 120 HABITUAL CRIMINAL 121 PROBATION BEFORE JUDGMENT_______________________________________________ 131 VIOLATION OF PROBATION SENTENCING POLICY 134 MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE OF USERS WORK RELEASE POLICY__________________________________ 136 PROBATION CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION 138 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION PROVISIONS 140 DELJIS SEX OFFENDER MANUAL TIER ASSESSMENTS 143 BAIL GUIDELINES 146 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 152 Benchbook 2020 3 INDEX OF OFFENSES CRIME CLASS STATUE PAGE Abandonment of Child ( 14 yrs of age or Class F Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1101 64 older) Abandonment of Child (<than 14 yrs of Class E Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1101 58 age) Abetting Driver's License Violation (Prior Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1249 71 Conviction/Death) Abetting Violation of Driver's License Class A Misdemeanors 11-1249 82 Abortion Class F Felony (Nonviolent) 11-651 64 Abuse of Infirm Adult: Bodily Harm Class D Felony (Violent) 31-3913(c) 50 Abuse of Pregnant Female 1st Degree Class B Felony 11-606 36 Abuse of Pregnant Female 2nd Degree Class C Felony (Violent) 11-605 43 Abuse of Sports Official (1st Offense) Class A Misdemeanors 11-614 76 Abuse of Sports Official (Prior Conv) Class G Felony (Violent) 11-614 68 Abuse/Neglect of Infirm Adult Class A Misdemeanors 31-3913(a) 76 Abuse/Neglect of Infirm Adult: Death Class A Felony 31-3913(c) 32 Abuse/Neglect of patient in Facility Class C Felony (Violent) 16-1136(a) 44 Abuse/Neglect of Patient in Residential Class A Misdemeanors 16-1136(a) 83 Facility Abuse/Neglect of Patient: Death Class A Felony 16-1136(a) 32 Abuse/Neglect of Patient: Sexual Contact Class G Felony (Violent) 16-1136(a) 68 Abusing a Corpse Class A Misdemeanors 11-1332 82 Act of Intimidation Class D Felony (NV) 11-3532 53 Adulteration Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1339 72 Adulteration (Injury/Illness) Class E Felony (Violent) 11-1339 56 Adulteration: Death Class A Felony 11-1339 32 Advancing Gambling 1st Degree Class A Misdemeanors 11-1403 83 Advancing Gambling 2nd Degree Class A Misdemeanors 11-1401 83 Advertise. Drug Parapher. Unclassified Misdemeanor 16-4774(e) 89 Aggravated Criminal Non-Support Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1113 71 Aggravated Crim. Non-support (Prior conv.) Class A Misdemeanors 11-1113(a) 82 Aggravated Harassment Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1312 71 Aggravated Act of Intimidation Class D Felony (Violent) 11-3533 37 Aggravated Menacing (Display Deadly Class E Felony (Violent) 11-602(b) 56 Weapon) Title 21 and Title 23 Aggressive Driving 21-4175A 92 Offenses Animals; fighting and baiting Class E Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1326(a) 59 Arson 1st Degree Class C Felony (Violent) 11-803 43 Arson 2nd Degree Class D Felony (Violent) 11-802 49 Arson 3rd Degree Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-801 70 Assault 1st Degree on Law Enforcement Class D Felony (Violent) 11-1250(c) 49 Animal Assault 1st Degree Class B Felony 11-613 38 Assault 2d Degree Against Law enforcement Class A Misdemeanors 11-1250(b) 76 Animal Assault 2nd Degree Class C Felony (Violent) 11-612 (11) 43 Assault 2nd Degree Class D Felony (Violent) 11-612 49 Benchbook 2020 4 CRIME CLASS STATUE PAGE Assault 3rd Degree Class A Misdemeanors 11-611 76 Assault in Detention Facility w/Serious Class B Felony 11-1254(b) 40 Injury Assault in Detention Facility: Bodily Class D Felony (Violent) 11-1254(c) 50 Emissions Assault in Detention Facility: Injury Class D Felony (Violent) 11-1254(a) 50 Background Checks for Child Serving Class G Felony (non- 31-310(c) 72 Entities violent) Background Checks for Child Serving Class A Misdemeanor (Non- 31-310(a) 83 Entities Violent) Benefit by False Representation Class E Felony (Nonviolent) 31-1003 61 Benefit by False Representation >$10,000 Class C Felony (Nonviolent) 31-1003 47 Bestiality Class D Felony (Violent) 11-775 49 Bigamy Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1001 71 Body Piercing & Tattoos Class A Misdemeanors 11-1114 82 Body Piercing & Tattoos Class B Misdemeanors 11-1114 86 Breach Conditions of Release Unclassified Misdemeanors 11-2113 88 (Misdemeanor) Breach of Conditions of Bail Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-2109(c)(1) 72 Breach of Conditions of Bail Unclassified Misdemeanors 11-2109(c)(2) 88 Breach of Release Conditions (Felony/Prior Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-2113(c)(1) 72 Conviction Crime) Bribery Class A Misdemeanors 11-881 81 Bribery of a Juror Class E Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1264 59 Bribery of a Public Servant Class E Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1201 58 Bribery of a Witness Class E Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1261 59 Burglary 1st Degree Class B Felony (Violent) 11-826(d) 48 Burglary 1st Degree Class C Felony 11-826(a) 39 Burglary 1st Degree Home Invasion Class C Felony 11-826(b) Burglary 2nd Degree Class D Felony (Violent) 11-825 48 Burglary 3rd Degree Class F Felony (Nonviolent) 11-824 70 Careless or Inattentive Driving Title 21 & Title 23 Offenses 21-4176 92 Carry Concealed Deadly Weapon Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1442 72 Carrying Concealed Dangerous Instrument Class A Misdemeanors 11-1443 76 Carry Concealed Deadly Weapon (Firearm) Class D Felony (Violent) 11-1442 50 Child Abuse in the First Degree Class B Felony 11-1103B 42 Child Abuse in the Second Degree Class G Felony (Nonviolent) 11-1103A 71 Child Abuse in the Third Degree Class A Misdemeanors 11-1103 76 Child Murder by Abuse/Neglect 1st Degree Class A Felony 11-634 32 Child Murder by Abuse/Neglect 2nd Degree Class B Felony 11-633 36 Coercion Class A Misdemeanors 11-791 81 Compound a Crime Class A Misdemeanors 11-1246 82 Computer Offense Penalties ($5,000- Class E Felony (Nonviolent)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Piteous Massacre’: Violence, Language, and the Off-Stage in Richard III
    Journal of the British Academy, 8(s3), 91–109 DOI https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/008s3.091 Posted 15 June 2020 ‘Piteous massacre’: violence, language, and the off-stage in Richard III Georgina Lucas Abstract: Shakespeare regularly stages extreme violence. In Titus Andronicus, Chiron and Demetrius are baked in a pie and eaten by their mother. Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out in King Lear. In contradistinction to this graphic excess are moments when violence is relegated off-stage: Macbeth kills King Duncan in private; when Richard III suborns the assassination of his nephews—the notorious ‘Princes in the Tower’—the boys are killed away from the audience. In such instances, the spectator must imagine the scope and formation of the violence described. Focussing on Richard III, this article asks why Shakespeare uses the word ‘massacre’ to express the murder of the two princes. Determining the varied, and competing, meanings of the term in the 16th and 17th centuries, the article uncovers a range of ways an early audience might have interpreted the killings—as mass murder, assassination, and butchery—and demonstrates their thematic connections to child-killing across the cycle of plays that Richard III concludes. Keywords: Shakespeare, massacre, Richard III, off-stage violence, child-killing. Notes on the author: Georgina Lucas is Lecturer in Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature in the School of Arts, English and Languages at Queen’s University, Belfast. Her research focusses upon the representation of mass and sexual violence on the early modern stage, and the performance and reception of Shakespeare during and after acts of atrocity.
    [Show full text]
  • From Juvenile Delinquent to Boy Murderer: Understanding Children Who Killed, 1816-1908
    From Juvenile Delinquent to Boy Murderer: Understanding Children Who Killed, 1816-1908. Betts, Eleanor Frances Winifred The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/11902 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] From Juvenile Delinquent to Boy Murderer: Understanding Children Who Killed, 1816-1908. Eleanor Frances Winifred Betts Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 Statement of Originality I, Eleanor F. W. Betts, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged below and my contribution indicated. Previously published material is also acknowledged below. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the College has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university.
    [Show full text]
  • Staging Executions: the Theater of Punishment in Early Modern England Sarah N
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2007 Staging Executions: The Theater of Punishment in Early Modern England Sarah N. Redmond Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY THE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES “STAGING EXECUTIONS: THE THEATER OF PUNISHMENT IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND” By SARAH N. REDMOND This thesis submitted to the Department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2007 The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Sarah N. Redmond, Defended on the 2nd of April, 2007 _______________________ Daniel Vitkus Professor Directing Thesis _______________________ Gary Taylor Committee Member _______________________ Celia Daileader Committee Member Approved: _______________________ Nancy Warren Director of Graduate Studies The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Daniel Vitkus, for his wonderful and invaluable ideas concerning this project, and Dr. Gary Taylor and Dr. Celia Daileader for serving on my thesis committee. I would also like to thank Drs. Daileader and Vitkus for their courses in the Fall 2006, which inspired elements of this thesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures . v Abstract . vi INTRODUCTION: Executions in Early Modern England: Practices, Conventions, Experiences, and Interpretations . .1 CHAPTER ONE: “Blood is an Incessant Crier”: Sensationalist Accounts of Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Print Culture . .11 CHAPTER TWO “Violence Prevails”: Death on the Stage in Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy and Middleton’s The Revenger’s Tragedy .
    [Show full text]
  • Murder in Families
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Murder in Families By John M. Dawson • When a son killed a parent, his victim and Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D. July 1994 was about as likely to be the mother as the BJS Statisticians father: 47% mothers versus 53% fathers. The United States has over 3,000 But when a daughter killed a parent, her A survey of murder cases disposed counties, but more than half of all victim was more likely to be the father than in 1988 in the courts of large urban murders occur in just 75 of them, the the mother: 81% fathers versus 19% counties indicated that 16% of murder Nation’s mort populous jurisdictions. mothers. victims were members of the defendant's This report taps a rich source of murder family. The remainder were murdered by data — prosecutors’ files in a sample of • In murders of persons under age 12, the friends or acquaintances (64%) or by these large urban places — for detailed victims' parents accounted for 57% of the strangers (20%). These findings are drawn information on the nature and extent of murderers. from a representative sample survey of a particular type of murder: those that State and county prosecutors' records. occur within families. In addition, the • Eleven percent of all victims age The survey covered disposed charges report uses these files justice systems 60 or older were killed by a son or against nearly 10,000 murder defendants, respond to family murder.
    [Show full text]
  • Meditating the Macbeths
    ECHOES OF HIDDEN CRIMES: MEDITATING THE MACBETHS By ADAM FREDERICK WILLHOUSE A thesis submitted to the Graduate School-Camden Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts Graduate Program in English Written under the direction of Doctor Chris Fitter And approved by ______________________________ Dr. Chris Fitter Camden, New Jersey October 2020 THESIS ABSTRACT Echoes of Hidden Crimes: Meditating the Macbeths By Adam Frederick Willhouse Thesis Director: Chris Fitter This paper serves as an observation of mid-sixteenth through early-seventeenth century crimes of infanticide and witchcraft, as they relate to the Macbeths of the Shakespearean play. I observe the contemporary cases and literature pertaining to the crime and argue that Lady Macbeth’s character serves as an example of a married woman, socially and economically upstanding, who is capable of committing various crimes against her neighbors, family, and herself with relative social impunity. The Macbeths collectively act out various forms of the crime of infanticide with their resources and mindsets sharply contrasting those of the crime’s less economically-capable culprits. Shakespeare’s two villainous masterminds, along with other examples in the contemporary literature, act on their infanticidal and child-murdering urges and expose the immense double-standard of justice, culpability, and responsibility for the crime. We also compare Lady Macbeth’s contrasting murderers to the economically destitute – those whose crimes were more often motivated by necessity and fear rather than the ambition of the upper classes. This essay explores the character and mindset of the child murderer and discusses their capability to commit a murder most foul, strange and unnatural.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasonable Efforts to Preserve Or Reunify Families and Achieve
    STATE STATUTES CURRENT THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2019 Reasonable Efforts to Preserve or Reunify Families and Achieve Permanency for Children To find statute information for a particular State, go to https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/state/. "Reasonable efforts" refers to activities of State WHAT'S INSIDE social services agencies that aim to provide the assistance and services needed to preserve and What are reasonable efforts? reunify families. The Federal title IV-E program requires States to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families (i) prior to the When reasonable efforts are required placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child’s home; and (ii) to make it possible for When reasonable efforts are not required a child to safely return to the child's home.1 Laws in all States, the District of Columbia, Summaries of State laws Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands require that child welfare agencies make reasonable efforts to provide services that will help families remedy the conditions that brought the child and family into the child welfare system. 1 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) (2018) Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS | 800.394.3366 | Email: [email protected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov 1 WHAT ARE REASONABLE WHEN REASONABLE EFFORTS EFFORTS? ARE REQUIRED The statutes in most States use a broad Federal law has long required State agencies definition of what constitutes reasonable to demonstrate they made reasonable efforts efforts. Generally, these efforts consist to provide assistance and services to prevent of accessible, available, and culturally the removal of a child from his or her home appropriate services that are designed to and to make it possible for a child who has improve the capacity of families to provide been placed in out-of-home care to be safe and stable homes for their children.
    [Show full text]
  • MADNESS, the SUPERNATURAL, and CHILD MURDER in TRAGEDY by GENNIFER ARWEN HUTCHISON DAVID DEUTSCH, COMMITTEE CHAIR YOLANDA MANORA
    MADNESS, THE SUPERNATURAL, AND CHILD MURDER IN TRAGEDY by GENNIFER ARWEN HUTCHISON DAVID DEUTSCH, COMMITTEE CHAIR YOLANDA MANORA WILLIAM ULMER HILARY GREEN A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of English in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2017 Copyright Gennifer Arwen Hutchison 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Child murder in modern American drama draws heavily from Greek tragic traditions, both stylistically and thematically. The number of playwrights (and authors) who have chosen to include infanticide in their works in both ancient Greece and modern America is larger than is to be expected of a topic considered taboo in both of these societies. The three great tragedians, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus, each chose to include the act in at least one of their plays. Sam Shepard, Edward Albee, and Eugene O’Neill utilized the structure of Greek tragedy in their own plays, including child murder. This thesis will look into the connections between classical Greek tragedies—specifically those written by Euripides—that include filicide, madness, and the supernatural—and modern American literature and drama, including Eugene O’Neill’s Desire Under the Elms, Toni Morrison’s Beloved, Sam Shepard’s Buried Child, and Cormac McCarthy’s Outer Dark. These plays and novels showcase an even balance between mothers committing the act of child murder and fathers committing the act of child murder. Furthermore, the works chosen demonstrate diversity of race, socio-economic positioning, geographic locale, and historical time. Of primary import, these connections will show recurring instances of the past haunting the present to create the future.
    [Show full text]
  • The Killing of Children
    GLOBAL STUDY ON HOMICIDE Killing of children and young adults 2019 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna GLOBAL STUDY ON HOMICIDE Killing of children and young adults 2019 © United Nations, July 2019. All rights reserved worldwide. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. Suggested citation: UNODC, Global Study on Homicide 2019 (Vienna, 2019) No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNODC. Applications for such permission, with a statement of purpose and intent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Research and Trend Analysis Branch of UNODC. DISCLAIMER The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNODC or contributory organizations, nor does it imply any endorsement. Comments on the report are welcome and can be sent to: Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime PO Box 500 1400 Vienna Austria Tel: (+43) 1 26060 0 Fax: (+43) 1 26060 5827 Killing of children and young adults PREFACE The Global Study on Homicide is a search for solutions. By bringing together the available data, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime seeks to shed light on different phenomena, from lethal gang violence and the role of firearms to links with inequalities and gender-related killings, and in this way support targeted action.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Is No Defense for Infanticide Michele Wen Chen Wu
    Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 11 | Issue 2 Article 28 2003 Culture is no Defense for Infanticide Michele Wen Chen Wu Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/jgspl Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Wu, Michele Wen Chen. "Culture is no Defense for Infanticide." American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law 11, no. 2 (2003): 975-1021. This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wu: Culture is no Defense for Infanticide WU_PKINAL 5/13/03 3:39 PM CULTURE IS NO DEENSE OR INANTICIDE MICHELE WEN CHEN WU∗ Introduction........................................................................................976 I. History of Infanticide................................................................978 II. The Cultural Defense ...............................................................981 A. Arguments in avor of a Cultural Defense..............................984 B. Arguments Against the Cultural Defense................................987 C. The Limited Use Intermediate Approach to Cultural Defense.......................................................................991 III. Infanticide
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial Laws: Social and Media Construction of Personalized Legislation, 1994-2005
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2009 Memorial Laws: Social and Media Construction of Personalized Legislation, 1994-2005 Faith H. Leibman The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3663 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Memorial Laws: Social and Media Construction of Personalized Legislation, 1994-2005 by FAITH H. LEIBMAN A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2009 © 2009 Faith H. Leibman All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Warren Benton Chair of Examining Committee Date Karen Terry Executive Officer Supervision Committee: Candace McCoy Richard Culp THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Memorial Laws: Social and Media Construction of Personalized Legislation, 1994-2005 by Faith H. Leibman Adviser: Professor Warren Benton This dissertation explores the possibility that certain social, demographic, and political factors have led to the recent adoption by American state legislatures of what are known as Memorial Laws. First enacted in 1994, these laws have become increasingly common. However, there has been little or no formal academic research into them.
    [Show full text]
  • RAISING CAIN the Role of Serious Mental Illness in Family Homicides
    RAISING CAIN The Role of Serious Mental Illness in Family Homicides E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. Founder and Board Member Treatment Advocacy Center Robert D. (Joe) Bruce Caratunk, Maine H. Richard Lamb, M.D. Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California Board Member, Treatment Advocacy Center Carla Jacobs Board Member, Treatment Advocacy Center Coordinator, California Treatment Advocacy Coalition D.J. Jaffe Director, Mental Illness Policy Org John Snook Executive Director Treatment Advocacy Center June 2016 Online at TACReports.org/raising-cain © 2016 Treatment Advocacy Center TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Methods 3. Results 3.1 Parents Killing Children 3.2 Children Killing Parents 3.3 Spouses Killing Spouses 3.4 Siblings Killing Siblings 3.5 Other Family Combinations 4. Family Homicides: Just the Tip of the Iceberg 5. Conclusions 6. Recommendations Acknowledgments and Financial Disclosures Endnotes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most individuals with serious mental illness are not dangerous. However, a small num- ber of them, most of whom are not being treated, may become dangerous to them- selves or to others. Some of these individuals may assault or even kill family members. This problem has received insufficient attention. • Although there have been previous studies of particular types of family homi- cides, such as children killed by parents, this is the first study of the role of serious mental illness in all family homicides. • For a sample of the nation’s homicides, local law enforcement agencies volun- tarily submit Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHRs) to the FBI that include the relationship between the person committing the homicide (offender) and the victim.
    [Show full text]
  • Homicides in Chicago, 1965-1981
    ----~J--- ,~, .. If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Homicides in Chicago, 1965-1981 Carolyn Re.becca Block ICPSR 8941 HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO, 1965-1981 (ICPSR 8941) Principal Investigator Carolyn Rebecca Block 115303 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of NCJ':R6 Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material in mi· croflche only has been granted by JAN iiO Rec'd Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ~esearch AC'Q U I SfTfON S to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis· sion of the copyright owner. First ICPSR Edition Fall 1988 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Acknowledgement of Assistance All manuscripts utilizing data made available through the Consortium should acknowledge that fact as well as identify the original collector of the data. The ICPSR Council urges all users of the ICPSR Data facilities to follow some adaptation of this statement with the parentheses indicating items to be filled in appropriately or deleted by the individual user. The data (and tabulations) utilized in this (publication) were made available (in part) by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
    [Show full text]