DOCSLIB.ORG

Access to Justice for Children: Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: MEXICO This report was produced by White & Case LLP in November 2013 but may have been subsequently edited by Child Rights International Network (CRIN). CRIN takes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in the report. I. What is the legal status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)? ​ A. What is the status of the CRC and other relevant ratified international instruments in the national legal system? ​ The CRC was signed by Mexico on 26 January 1990, ratified on 21 November 1990, and published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) on 25 ​ ​ January 1991. In addition to the CRC, Mexico has ratified the Optional Protocols relating to the involvement of children in armed conflict and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. All treaties signed by the President of Mexico, with the approval of the Senate, are deemed to constitute the supreme law of Mexico, together with the Constitution and the laws of the Congress of the Union.1 The CRC is therefore part of national law and may serve as a legal basis in any proceedings before the national courts. It is also part of the supreme law of Mexico as a whole and must be implemented at federal level and in all the individual states.2 B. Does the CRC take precedence over national law The CRC has been interpreted to take precedence over national laws, but not the Constitution. According to doctrinal thesis LXXVII/99 of November 1999, international treaties are ranked second immediately after the Constitution and ahead of federal and local laws.3 On several occasions, Mexico’s Supreme Court has stated that international ​ treaties take precedence over national law, mainly in the case of human rights.4 C. Has the CRC been incorporated into national law The CRC has been incorporated into national law by virtue of the process of ratification (see part I.A above). Since ratification, the Mexican Government has taken steps to bring national legislation into conformity with the CRC. For example, Article 4 of the Constitution was amended in 2000 to give constitutional status to the right of children to satisfy their needs in terms of food, health, education and healthy recreation. This was followed by the enactment 1 Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos ​ Mexicanos) (Constitution), Article 133; Law on International Treaties (Ley sobre la Celebración de ​ ​ Tratados), Article 2. ​ 2 Third periodic report of Mexico to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/125/Add.7, 24 ​ ​ August 2005, para. 13. Available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2f125%2f Add.7&Lang=en. ​ 3 Ibid. 4 See, for example, the opinions of the Supreme Court of Mexico issued in April 2007 and November 1999 by means of tesis aisladas with record numbers 172650 and 192867, respectively. ​ ​ 1 of the Act on the Protection of the Rights of Children in order to regulate Article 4 of the Constitution, as well as similar legislation in 11 states across Mexico. However, the Committee remains concerned about “the lack of effectiveness of the measures taken to implement the rights contained in the Convention and to allow rights holders to claim them”, the fact that “not all national legislation is in full conformity with the Convention”, and that legislation such as the Act on the Protection of the Rights of Children has not been fully integrated into state laws.5 D. Can the CRC be directly enforced in the courts? ​ International treaties such as the CRC are considered part of the supreme law of Mexico, therefore they can be directly enforced in courts.6 Moreover, under Article 1 of the Constitution, provisions on human rights must be interpreted in accordance with the Constitution and international treaties encouraging broader protection for people. E. Are there examples of domestic courts using or applying the CRC or other relevant international instruments? ​ The CRC has been applied and cited in cases before the Supreme Court of Mexico, including with regard to child custody,7 and the government’s duty to protect children.8 II. What is the legal status of the child? ​ A. Can children and/or their representatives bring cases in domestic courts to challenge violations of children’s rights? ​ Children are entitled to bring amparo petitions for the protection of human rights ​ contemplated in the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Mexico (which includes the CRC) when such rights are violated by general provisions, acts or omissions of authorities (see part III.A below).9 Children may also bring civil cases with the assistance of a representative, submit complaints to the Attorney General if they are a victim of crime (see part II.B below), or submit complaints to the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) regarding alleged human rights violations (see part III.A below). B. If so, are children of any age permitted to bring these cases by themselves in their own names/on their own behalf, or must the case be brought by or with the assistance of a representative? ​ At both a federal level and in all of Mexico’s states, children are not entitled to bring 5 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of ​ Mexico, CRC/C/MEX/CO/3, 8 June 2006, para. 6. Available at: ​ http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2fMEX% 2fCO%2f3&Lang=en. ​ 6 See, for example, opinion of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice issued in December 2012 by means of jurisprudence with record number 2002264. ​ ​ 7 http://www.scjn.gob.mx/conocelacorte/ministra/derechosdelnino.pdf, (accessed 11 February 2014). ​ ​ 8 http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/fi1­2009/Documentos/Informes/FacultadDeInvestigacion­1­2009V1.pdf, ​ ​ (accessed 11 February 2014). 9 Amparo Law, Article 1. 2 cases in civil courts, and must do so with the assistance of their representatives (e.g. parents or guardians).10 Federal and state legislation on civil procedure provides that only people with legal capacity are entitled to initiate a judicial procedure (i.e. bring cases before domestic courts),11 and children (under the age of 18) are deemed to lack legal capacity,12 therefore cases must be brought to court by their representatives. However, children are entitled to bring actions by themselves to protect their individual rights under the Amparo Law if their legal representative is absent, is prevented from bringing such cases, or refuses to bring such cases. The competent court will immediately appoint a special representative to appear in such trial. If the child is over the age of 14, they may appoint a special representative themselves in the initial lawsuit. 13 With respect to federal criminal law, children aged 16 or over may submit a complaint (querella) before the Attorney General by themselves or through their representative if ​ ​ ​ they are victim of a crime. In cases of child victims under 16, complaints must be submitted by those who exercise custody or guardianship over the child.14 At the state level, the majority of states within Mexico provide for children’s ability to submit a complaint by themselves.15 However, in some states, all children need the assistance of a representative in order to file a complaint,16 while some other states impose a threshold of the age of 12,17 14,18 or 1619 for the ability to file a complaint without the assistance of a representative. The Law for the Protection of Rights of Children and Adolescents (Ley para la ​ Protección de los Derechos de Niñas, Niños y Adolescentes) provides that all federal, ​ local and municipal institutions created for the protection of the rights of children have the authority to represent the interests of children before courts (judicial or administrative).20 C. In the case of infants and young children, how would cases typically be brought? ​ In the case of infants and young children, their cases would typically be brought through their representatives (see part II.B above). D. Would children or their representatives be eligible to receive free or subsidized legal assistance in bringing these kinds of cases? ​ In Mexico, a person who is accused of a crime has the right under the Constitution to receive subsidised legal assistance (defensor de oficio).21 In any criminal procedure ​ ​ 10 Federal Civil Code, Articles 412 and 414. 11 Federal Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1. 12 Federal Civil Code, Article 450, Section I. 13 Amparo Law, Article 8. 14 Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 115. 15 Campeche, Distrito Federal, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Estado de México, Nayarit, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Tlaxcala. 16 Baja California Sur, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Colima, Durango, Jalisco and Veracruz. 17 Zacatecas. 18 Aguascalientes, Baja California, Hidalgo and Yucatán. 19 Coahuila, Michoacán, Morelos, Nuevo León, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, Sonora and Tabasco. 20 Law for the Protection of Rights of Children and Adolescents, Article 49(B). 21 Constitution, Article 20. 3 involving a child, the Constitution requires that the Attorney General or the court assist the child—e.g., by supplying legal arguments on the child’s behalf—with the view to protecting the best interests of the child.22 Under the Federal Law of Public Defence (Ley Federal de Defensoría Pública), ​ ​ ​ indigent persons are entitled to public defence free of charge.23 This is provided through (i) public defenders in criminal cases, from the initial investigation to the execution of sentence or measures; and (ii) legal advisers in non­criminal matters.24 The federal legal aid system is administered by the Federal Public Defence Institute (Instituto Federal de Defensoría Publica), an independent body functioning as part of ​ ​ the judiciary.
Recommended publications
  • Charging Language

    Charging Language

    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
  • Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense

    Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense

    63 Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense Article 15: Criminal Offense A criminal offense is an unlawful act: (a) that is prescribed as a criminal offense by law; (b) whose characteristics are specified by law; and (c) for which a penalty is prescribed by law. Commentary This provision reiterates some of the aspects of the principle of legality and others relating to the purposes and limits of criminal legislation. Reference should be made to Article 2 (“Purpose and Limits of Criminal Legislation”) and Article 3 (“Principle of Legality”) and their accompanying commentaries. Article 16: Criminal Responsibility A person who commits a criminal offense is criminally responsible if: (a) he or she commits a criminal offense, as defined under Article 15, with intention, recklessness, or negligence as defined in Article 18; IOP573A_ModelCodes_Part1.indd 63 6/25/07 10:13:18 AM 64 • General Part, Section (b) no lawful justification exists under Articles 20–22 of the MCC for the commission of the criminal offense; (c) there are no grounds excluding criminal responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense under Articles 2–26 of the MCC; and (d) there are no other statutorily defined grounds excluding criminal responsibility. Commentary When a person is found criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal offense, he or she can be convicted of this offense, and a penalty or penalties may be imposed upon him or her as provided for in the MCC. Article 16 lays down the elements required for a finding of criminal responsibility against a person.
  • A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

    A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement negotiations and changes in law. This timeline, however, will hold true in the majority of federal felony cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Initial appearance: Felony defendants are usually brought to federal court in the custody of federal agents. Usually, the charges against the defendant are in a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint is accompanied by an affidavit that summarizes the evidence against the defendant. At the defendant's first appearance, a defendant appears before a federal magistrate judge. This magistrate judge will preside over the first two or three appearances, but the case will ultimately be referred to a federal district court judge (more on district judges below). The prosecutor appearing for the government is called an "Assistant United States Attorney," or "AUSA." There are no District Attorney's or "DAs" in federal court. The public defender is often called the Assistant Federal Public Defender, or an "AFPD." When a defendant first appears before a magistrate judge, he or she is informed of certain constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent. The defendant is then asked if her or she can afford counsel. If a defendant cannot afford to hire counsel, he or she is instructed to fill out a financial affidavit. This affidavit is then submitted to the magistrate judge, and, if the defendant qualifies, a public defender or CJA panel counsel is appointed.
  • Nvcc College-Wide Course Content Summary Lgl 218 - Criminal Law (3 Cr.)

    Nvcc College-Wide Course Content Summary Lgl 218 - Criminal Law (3 Cr.)

    NVCC COLLEGE-WIDE COURSE CONTENT SUMMARY LGL 218 - CRIMINAL LAW (3 CR.) COURSE DESCRIPTION Focuses on major crimes, including their classification, elements of proof, intent, conspiracy, responsibility, parties, and defenses. Emphasizes Virginia law. May include general principles of applicable Constitutional law and criminal procedure. Lecture 3 hours per week. GENERAL COURSE PURPOSE This course is designed to introduce the student to the various substantive and procedural areas of criminal law. ENTRY LEVEL COMPETENCIES Although there are no prerequisites for this course, proficiency (at the high school level) in spoken and written English is recommended for its successful completion. COURSE OBJECTIVES Upon completion of this course, the student should be able to: - describe the structure of the criminal justice system - describe the elements of various federal and Virginia state crimes - understand the ways in which a person can become a party to a crime - describe the elements of various affirmative defenses to federal and Virginia state crimes - understand the basic structure of the law governing arrest, search and seizure, and recognize Constitutional issues posed in these areas - describe the stages of criminal proceedings, in both federal and state courts, and assist a prosecutor or defense lawyer at each stage of such proceedings MAJOR TOPICS TO BE INCLUDED - crimes versus moral wrongs - felonies vs. misdemeanors - criminal capacity - actus reas, mens rea and causation - elements of various federal and Virginia state crimes - inchoate crimes: attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy - parties to a crime - affirmative defenses - insanity - probable cause - arrest, with and without a warrant - search and seizure, with and without a warrant - grand jury indictments - bail and pretrial release - pretrial proceedings - steps of trial and appeal EXTRA TOPICS WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED - purposes of criminal law and punishment - sentencing, probation and parole - special issues posed by mental illness - special issues posed by the death penalty .
  • Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and American Civil Liberties Union in Support of Respondent

    Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and American Civil Liberties Union in Support of Respondent

    No. 16-1495 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW JACK DWIGHT VOGT, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT Barbara E. Bergman Jeffrey A. Mandell NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF Counsel of Record CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS Laura E. Callan 1660 L Street, N.W. Erika L. Bierma Washington, D.C. 20036 Eileen M. Kelley Elizabeth C. Stephens David D. Cole STAFFORD ROSENBAUM LLP Rachel Wainer Apter 222 W. Washington Ave., Ezekiel Edwards Suite 900 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Madison, WI 53701 UNION FOUNDATION (608) 256-0226 915 15th Street N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20005 December 20, 2017 Counsel for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................................................... 1 STATEMENT .............................................................. 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 9 THE FIFTH AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE AGAINST SELF- INCRIMINATION APPLIES AT PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. ............................ 11 A. This principle is consistent with the Constitution’s text and with precedent……… ............................................. 11 B. Limiting the Self-Incrimination Clause’s application to the criminal trial itself would severely prejudice defendants…….. ............................................ 18 C. The government’s policy concerns do not withstand scrutiny. ............................ 24 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 29 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Best v. City of Portland, 554 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2009) ............................ 14, 24 Blyew v. United States, 13 Wall. 581 (1872) ................................................ 13 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) .......................................... 13, 27 Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S.
  • Felony Case Processing Study Phase I Final Report and Recommendations

    Felony Case Processing Study Phase I Final Report and Recommendations

    Cuyahoga County, Ohio Felony Case Processing Study Phase I Final Report and Recommendations Submitted to: The Cuyahoga County Commissioners and The Cuyahoga County Adult Justice Group By The Justice Management Institute May 22, 2005 Contact Person Douglas K. Somerlot 1900 Grant Street, Suite 630 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 831-7564 Fax: (303) 831-4564 Table of Contents Item Page Number Summary of Recommendations 1 Impact of Recommendations on Staff and Computer Equipment 8 Background 14 New Proposals and Developments 25 Issues and Recommendations 29 Appendix 1, Description of The Justice Management Institute 63 Appendix 2, Description of The Adult Justice Group 66 Appendix 3, Methodology and Individuals Interviewed 68 i THE JUSTICE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE Cuyahoga County, Ohio Felony Case Processing Study– Phase I Summary of Recommendations I. GOVERNANCE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. Criminal Justice Supervisory Committee. Recommendation Number 1: Cuyahoga County should form a county-wide Criminal Justice Supervisory Committee. The Committee should be drawn from key leaders at the county and municipal levels and should have top quality staff. It should be charged with planning for system-wide improvements in criminal justice system operations, monitoring progress toward achievement of goals, acting collectively to address systemic problems, and reporting at least annually to county and municipal governing bodies. II. ARREST TO ARRAIGNMENT. A. Case investigation processing paths should be consistent with the severity and complexity of the crime charged and the possible sentence that could be imposed. Recommendation Number 2: A committee composed of representatives of the police agencies, municipal and county prosecutor’s office, public defender, and probation department should develop a case investigation process which accelerates the law enforcement processing of cases where the charges are lower grade felonies, cases where there is no victim and few witnesses, and cases involving low-level substance abuse.
  • A Plea for Discovery of Evidence in Aggravation

    A Plea for Discovery of Evidence in Aggravation

    Death by Ambush: A Plea for Discovery of Evidence in Aggravation Tamara L. Graham* I. Introduction On February 26, 1997, the Commonwealth of Virginia executed Coleman Wayne Gray for the capital murder of Richard McClelland, the manager of Murphy’s Mart in Portsmouth, Virginia.1 One might argue, however, that he was actually executed for the murders of Lisa and Shanta Sorrell, despite having never been charged with those crimes.2 The Sorrell murders looked somewhat like McClelland’s murder; however, the only direct link that the Commonwealth had between Gray and the Sorrell murders was the testimony of Melvin Tucker, Gray’s accomplice in the McClelland murder.3 Tucker received a life sentence in exchange for, among other things, his testimony that Gray told him that he had killed the Sorrells.4 To convince the jury that Gray would “constitute a continuing serious threat to society,” the Commonwealth introduced testimony from the detective and the medical examiner in the Sorrell case and, in effect, conducted a mini-murder trial within the sentencing phase of the trial of the only crime for which it had actually indicted Gray.5 Gray’s counsel asked the trial court to exclude the surprise evidence.6 The court refused, and the jury * J.D. Candidate, May 2006, Washington and Lee University School of Law; B.A., Hanover College, 1996. I thank professor David I. Bruck for his guidance and wisdom; Jessie Seiden, Meghan Morgan, Max Smith, and Todd Egland for their editorial prowess; Marsha L. Dutton for providing the stylistic foundation for everything I write; my 2006 VC3 colleagues for having my back; and Carrie Herring for her patience and support.
  • Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime

    Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime

    Please cite as: Getoš Kalac, A.M. (2020): Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime – the Role of Criminology? Conference Paper presented at the 2019 biannual conference of the Scientific Association of German, Austrian and Swiss Criminologists (KrimG) in Vienna. Forthcoming in: Neue Kriminologische Schriftenreihe der Kriminologischen Gesellschaft e.V., vol. 118, Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg. Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime – the Role of Criminology? To Adapt, or to Die, that is the Question!1 Anna-Maria Getoš Kalac Abstract: There is no doubt that, in terms of criminal policy, we have been living in an era of pre-crime for quite some time now. Whether we like it or not, times have changed and so has the general position on concepts of (criminal) guilt, dangerousness and liability. Whereas once there was a broad consensus that penal repression, at least in principle, should be executed in a strictly post-crime fashion, nowadays same consensus has been reached on trading freedom (from penal repression) for (promised) security, long before an ‘actual crime’ might even be committed. In this regard the criminalisation of endangerment and risks only nomotechnically solves the issue of ‘actual’ vs. ‘potential’ crimes – in essence it merely creates a normative fiction of pre-crime crimes, whereas in reality ‘actual crimes’ do not exist at all. The starting point of criminalisation has clearly shifted away from the guilt of having committed a crime, to the mere dangerousness of potentially committing a crime, which potential as such is purely hypothetical and beyond the grasp of empirical proof.
  • Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/25/2021 05:39:10PM Via Free Access

    Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/25/2021 05:39:10PM Via Free Access

    JOBNAME: Ross PAGE: 1 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Fri May 27 10:11:14 2016 Index acquittals 81, 88, 162, 245, 376, 442 conditions 137 directed verdict 75, 109, 373, 375 final orders 136, 137 double jeopardy and appeals of 37–8, First Information Report (FIR) 135 56 historical background 123 Japan 85, 86, 404, 406, 407, 410, 414 developments since 1973 129–34 judge as investigator 89 Independence to section 438 126–9 judgment reasons 96–9 Indian PoliceAct 1861 to acquittals overturned: inadequacy Independence in 1947 123–6 of 101–4 interim orders 136–7 jury 38, 54, 56, 57, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, key features of s 438(1) 137 88, 373–4, 378, 439 knowledge of imminent arrest 135–6 Spain 86, 377, 380 lawyers’fees 137 pre-trial detention 192 text of s 438 136, 159–60 relative disappearance of 85–6 appeals 78, 79, 85, 371, 521 transcripts of trial testimony: acquittals 89, 442 overturn 91 double jeopardy and 37–8, 56 adversarial-inquisitorial dichotomy 4, Japan’s lay judge system 404 13, 16, 35, 36, 58–9, 245 jury verdicts 38, 54, 56, 57, 80, 81, appeals of acquittals 37–8 82, 373–4, 377, 378, 439 re-prosecution 39 ‘cassation’and ‘appeal’90–91, 440 endurance of 519–33 cassational courts, efficacy of 90–93 strengths 523–6 Japan 404, 410, 414 tradition 520–523 jury verdicts 38, 54, 56, 57, 58, 80, weaknesses 526–32 81, 82, 373–4, 377–8, 423–4, exclusionary rules 13, 18–19, 39–41, 438–42 44, 244 reasons on appeal 427–8 history 80–83 negotiated verdicts 47, 51 ‘innocence-weighted’approach 36–7 non-prosecution decision 225, 241–2 juries 14, 55–6 Spain 85, 92, 375–6,
  • The United States Supreme Court Adopts a Reasonable Juvenile Standard in J.D.B. V. North Carolina

    The United States Supreme Court Adopts a Reasonable Juvenile Standard in J.D.B. V. North Carolina

    THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ADOPTS A REASONABLE JUVENILE STANDARD IN J.D.B. V NORTH CAROLINA FOR PURPOSES OF THE MIRANDA CUSTODY ANALYSIS: CAN A MORE REASONED JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR JUVENILES BE FAR BEHIND? Marsha L. Levick and Elizabeth-Ann Tierney∗ I. Introduction II. The Reasonable Person Standard a. Background b. The Reasonable Person Standard and Children: Kids Are Different III. Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida: Embedding Developmental Research Into the Court’s Constitutional Analysis IV. From Miranda v. Arizona to J.D.B. v. North Carolina V. J.D.B. v. North Carolina: The Facts and The Analysis VI. Reasonableness Applied: Justifications, Defenses, and Excuses a. Duress Defenses b. Justified Use of Force c. Provocation d. Negligent Homicide e. Felony Murder VII. Conclusion I. Introduction The “reasonable person” in American law is as familiar to us as an old shoe. We slip it on without thinking; we know its shape, style, color, and size without looking. Beginning with our first-year law school classes in torts and criminal law, we understand that the reasonable person provides a measure of liability and responsibility in our legal system.1 She informs our * ∗Marsha L. Levick is the Deputy Director and Chief Counsel for Juvenile Law Center, a national public interest law firm for children, based in Philadelphia, Pa., which Ms. Levick co-founded in 1975. Ms. Levick is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University School of Law. Elizabeth-Ann “LT” Tierney is the 2011 Sol and Helen Zubrow Fellow in Children's Law at the Juvenile Law Center.
  • Crimes and Criminal Procedure—Appeals Of

    Crimes and Criminal Procedure—Appeals Of

    Crimes and Criminal Procedure—Appeals of Municipal Court and District Magistrate Judgments; Search Warrants; Reporting of Pornographic Materials Seized or Documented as Evidence; Sub. for HB 2017 Sub. for HB 2017 amends provisions of the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure concerning appeals of municipal court and district magistrate judgments, search warrants, and reporting of pornographic materials seized or documented as evidence. Municipal Court and District Magistrate Judgments The bill amends the law concerning appeals to the district court of municipal court judgments and judgments of a district magistrate judge to provide that these appeals can be filed only after the sentence has been imposed. Further, the bill provides no appeal can be taken more than 14 days after the sentence is imposed. Search Warrants Previously, all search warrants were required to be supported by facts sufficient to show probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. The bill allows for a warrant to be issued based on probable cause that a crime is about to be committed and makes other technical amendments applicable to all search warrants. Further, the bill adds language specific to search warrants for tracking devices, allowing a magistrate to issue a search warrant for the installation, maintenance, and use of a tracking device. The warrant authorizes use of the device to track and collect tracking data relating to a person or property for a specified time period, but no more than 30 days from installation. The bill defines “tracking device” and “tracking data.” For good cause shown, the warrant can authorize retrieval of tracking data recorded during the specified time period within a reasonable time after the warrant expires, and the magistrate can authorize one or more extensions of the warrant of no more than 30 days each.
  • Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia

    Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia

    (not official copy) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA GENERAL PART Section One : GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1. LEGISLATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Article 1. Legislation Governing Criminal Proceedings Article 2. Objectives of the Criminal-Procedure Legislation Article 3. Territory of Effect of the Criminal-procedure Law Article 4. Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law in the Course of Time Article 5. Peculiarities in the Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law Article 6. Definitions of the Basic Notions Used in the Criminal-procedure Code CHAPTER 2. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Article 7. Legitimacy Article 8. Equality of All Before the Law Article 9. Respect for the Rights, Freedoms and Dignity of an Individual Article 10. Ensuring the Right to Legal Assistance Article 11. Immunity of Person Article 12. Immunity of Residence Article 13. Security of Property Article 14. Confidentiality of Correspondence, Telephone Conversations, Mail, Telegraph and Other Communications Article 15. Language of Criminal Proceedings Article 16. Public Trial Article 17. Fair Trial Article 18. Presumption of Innocence Article 19. The Right to Defense of the Suspect and the Accused and Guarantees for this Right Article 20. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (not official copy) Article 21. Inadmissibility of Repeated Conviction and Criminal Prosecution for the Same Crime Article 22. Rehabilitation of the Rights of the Persons who suffered from Judicial Mistakes Article 23. Adversarial System of Criminal Proceedings Article 24. Administration of Justice Exclusively by the Court Article 25. Independent Assessment of Evidence CHAPTER 3. CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CASE Article 26. Conduct of Criminal Case Article 27. The Obligation to institute a criminal case and resolution of the crime Article 28.