Capital Punishment, 1995

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Capital Punishment, 1995 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin December 1996, NCJ-162043 Capital Punishment 1995 By Tracy L. Snell BJS Statistician Highlights Status of the death penalty, December 31,1995 Sixteen States executed 56 prisoners during 1995. The number of persons Number of prisoners Jurisdictions executed was 25 greater than in 1994 Executions during 1995 under sentence of death without a death penalty and was the largest annual number Texas 19 California 420 Alaska since the 56 executed during 1960 Missouri 6 Texas 404 District of Columbia and the 65 in 1957. The prisoners Illinois 5 Florida 362 Hawaii executed during 1995 had been under Virginia 5 Pennsylvania 196 Iowa sentence of death an average of 11 Florida 3 Ohio 155 Maine Oklahoma 3 Illinois 154 Massachusetts years and 2 months, about 12 months Alabama 2 Alabama 143 Michigan more than the average for inmates Arkansas 2 North Carolina 139 Minnesota executed the previous year. Georgia 2 Oklahoma 129 North Dakota North Carolina 2 Arizona 117 Rhode Island At yearend 1995, 3,054 prisoners were Pennsylvania 2 Georgia 98 Vermont Arizona 1 Tennessee 96 West Virginia under sentence of death. California Delaware 1 Missouri 92 Wisconsin held the largest number of death row Louisiana 1 22 other jurisdictions 549 inmates (420), followed by Texas Montana 1 (404), Florida (362), and Pennsylvania South Carolina 1 (196). Eight prisoners were in Federal Total 56 Total 3,054 custody under a death sentence on In 1995, 56 men were executed: Forty-eight women were under December 31, 1995. 33 were white a sentence of death. 22 were black The 237 Hispanic inmates under Between January 1 and December 31, 1 was Asian. sentence of death accounted for 1995, 26 State prison systems and the Federal prison system received 310 The persons executed in 1995 were 8.5% of inmates with a known prisoners under sentence of death. under sentence of death an average ethnicity. Texas (40 admissions), California (36), of 11 years and 2 months. North Carolina (34), and Florida (31) Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal accounted for 45% of the inmates en- At yearend 1995, 34 States and the Federal prison system held 3,054 histories, 2 in 3 had a prior felony tering prison under a death sentence conviction; 1 in 12 had a prior homi- in 1995. prisoners under sentence of death, 5.1% more than at yearend 1994. cide conviction. All had committed murder. During 1995, 56 persons in 16 States Among persons for whom arrest were executed 19 in Texas; 6 in Of persons under sentence information was available, the aver- Missouri; 5 each in Illinois and Vir- of death age age at time of arrest was 28; about 2% of inmates were age 17 ginia; 3 each in Florida and Okla- 1,730 were white or younger. homa; 2 each in Alabama, Arkansas, 1,275 were black Georgia, North Carolina, and 22 were Native American Pennsylvania; and 1 each in Arizona, 19 were Asian At yearend, the youngest inmate was 18; the oldest was 80. Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, and 8 were classified as "other race." Persons executed, 1930-95 Connecticut Revised its penal code to change the method of execution Number from electrocution to lethal injection; to of executions remove the requirement that the State 200 supreme court review the proportional- ity of a death sentence compared to penalties imposed in similar cases; 160 and to add to its list of capital felonies murder of a person under age 16 (See P.A. 95-16). These changes became effective 10/1/95. 120 Delaware Revised a statute limiting the number of witnesses at the execu- 80 tion to 10 and allowing one adult, either an immediate family member 56 of the victim or the "victim's designee", 40 to be present as one of those wit- nesses (11 Del. c. § 4209(f)), effective 5/15/95. 0 Delaware lawmakers also added as 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1995 an aggravating circumstance murder committed to interfere with the victim's South Carolina. All were men. Thirty Statutory changes First Amendment rights or as a re- of the executed prisoners were non- sponse to the victim's exercise of Hispanic whites; 22 were non-Hispanic During 1995, 19 States revised statu- those rights or to the victim's race, blacks; 2, white Hispanics; 1, Asian; tory provisions relating to the death religion, color, disability, national origin and 1, white with unknown Hispanic penalty (table 1). Most of the changes or ancestry (11 Del. c. § 4209(e) origin. Forty-nine of the executions involved additional aggravating cir- (1)(v)), effective 7/6/95. were carried out by lethal injection and cumstances, procedural amendments 7 by electrocution. addressing the rights of victims and Idaho Revised and added sections their families, and changes in methods to its penal code relating to the death From January 1, 1977, to December of execution. penalty. These changes became 31, 1995, a total of 4,857 persons en- effective 7/1/95. tered State and Federal prisons under By State, these statutory changes sentences of death, among whom 51% were as follows: Idaho amended its code of criminal were white, 41% were black, 7% were procedure to require that, upon convic- Hispanic, and 1% were of other races. Arkansas Added to its definition of tion of a defendant, the court hold a capital murder purposely discharging a hearing to weigh aggravating and miti- During this 19-year period, a total of firearm from a vehicle resulting in the gating factors in the case to determine 313 executions took place in 26 death of another person (Ark. Code the appropriateness of a death sen- States. Of the inmates executed, 171 Ann. § 51-10-101(a)(10)), effective tence (19-2515, Idaho Code). were white, 120 were black, 19 were 7/27/95. Hispanic, 2 were Native American, Another procedural amendment set and 1 was Asian. Colorado Amended its code of guidelines regarding requests for stays criminal procedure establishing appel- of execution based on petitions to hear Also during 1977-95, 1,870 prisoners late review at the sentencing phase of new evidence that was not known prior were removed from a death sentence a capital case. Upon conviction of a to the deadline for filing of an appeal as a result of dispositions other than defendant, a sentencing hearing will on such grounds. The statute nar- execution (resentencing, retrial, com- be conducted by a three-judge panel; rowed the availability of successive mutation, or death while awaiting exe- previously, a jury considered evidence post-conviction proceedings (19-2719, cution). Of all persons removed from and recommended punishment. The Idaho Code). under a death sentence, 52% were amendment also outlines the process white, 41% were black, 1% were Na- by which panel members will be se- The Idaho legislature also added new tive American, 0.5% were Asian, and lected (CRS 16-11-103(1)(a)). These sections to its code of criminal proce- 5% were Hispanic. revisions became effective 7/1/95. dure in capital cases: one providing for an inquiry into a convicted defendant's 2 Capital Punishment 1995 need for a new attorney upon showing Nevada Added to its penal code as origin, physical or mental disability, of ineffectiveness of the trial lawyer aggravating factors murder of a de- or sexual orientation (NRS 200.033), (19-2719A, Idaho Code); another pro- partment of prisons employee who effective 10/1/95. viding for review of a case by the doesn't exercise control over but Idaho supreme court, upon remand comes into regular contact with the New Jersey Amended its penal from a Federal court, to decide offender; murder of a person under code to allow evidence during the sen- whether legal or factual errors can be age 14; and murder of a person be- tencing proceeding pertaining to the addressed without remanding the case cause of their race, religion, national victim's character and impact of the back to the State district court (19-2818, Idaho Code). Table 1. Capital offenses, Missouri. First-degree murder (565.020 by State, 1995 RSMO). Illinois Added to its penal code as Montana. Capital murder with aggravating an aggravating factor murder by dis- Alabama. Intentional murder with 18 aggravat- circumstances. charging a firearm from a motor vehi- ing factors (13A-5-40). Nebraska. First-degree murder. cle when the victim was outside of the Arizona. First-degree murder accompanied by motor vehicle (720-ILCS 5/9-1(b)(15)), at least 1 of 10 aggravating factors. Nevada. First-degree murder with 10 aggravat- ing circumstances. effective 1/1/95. Arkansas. Capital murder with a finding of at least 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances New Hampshire. Capital murder. Indiana Amended the code of crimi- (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101); treason. nal procedure to specify time limits New Jersey. Purposeful or knowing murder; California. First-degree murder with special contract murder; murder or solicitation thereof within which the execution must be circumstances; train-wrecking; treason; perjury by a leader of a narcotics trafficking network. carried out, time limits and procedures causing execution. for addressing petitions for post- New Mexico. First-degree murder (Section Colorado. First-degree murder with at least 30-2-1 A, NMSA). conviction relief, and issues for consid- 1 of 13 aggravating factors; treason. Capital eration by Indiana's supreme court sentencing excludes persons determined to be New York. First-degree murder with 1 of 10 in conducting automatic review of mentally retarded. aggravating factors.
Recommended publications
  • Penal Code Chapter 32. Fraud
    PENAL CODE TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY CHAPTER 32. FRAUD SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec.A32.01.AADEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1)AA"Financial institution" means a bank, trust company, insurance company, credit union, building and loan association, savings and loan association, investment trust, investment company, or any other organization held out to the public as a place for deposit of funds or medium of savings or collective investment. (2)AA"Property" means: (A)AAreal property; (B)AAtangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or (C)AAa document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value. (3)AA"Service" includes: (A)AAlabor and professional service; (B)AAtelecommunication, public utility, and transportation service; (C)AAlodging, restaurant service, and entertainment; and (D)AAthe supply of a motor vehicle or other property for use. (4)AA"Steal" means to acquire property or service by theft. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Sec.A32.02.AAVALUE. (a) Subject to the additional criteria of Subsections (b) and (c), value under this chapter is: (1)AAthe fair market value of the property or service at the time and place of the offense; or 1 (2)AAif the fair market value of the property cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the property within a reasonable time after the offense. (b)AAThe value of documents, other than those having a readily ascertainable market value, is: (1)AAthe amount due and collectible at maturity less any part that has been satisfied, if the document constitutes evidence of a debt; or (2)AAthe greatest amount of economic loss that the owner might reasonably suffer by virtue of loss of the document, if the document is other than evidence of a debt.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Court Ruling on Criminal Defamation
    THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA 5 CORAM: HON. JUSTICE A.E.N. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, JA HON. JUSTICE S.G. ENGWAU, JA HON. JUSTICE C.K. BYAMUGISHA, JA HON. JUSTICE S.B.K. KAVUMA, JA 10 HON. JUSTICE A.S. NSHIMYE, JA CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE NO. 1/2008 (Arising out of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2008 in the Chief Magistrates Court at Nakawa) 15 1. JOACHIM BUWEMBO 2. BERNARD TABAIRE 3. EMMANUEL DAVIES GYEZAHO 4. MUKASA ROBERT ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS VERSUS 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT (Statutory interpretation - Whether Section 179 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120) is inconsistent with Article 29(1) (a) of the Constitution. - Whether or not Sections 179 of the Penal Code Act is a restriction permitted under Article 43 of the Constitution as being demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.) 25 Ruling of the Court This Constitutional Reference arose out of Criminal Case No. 41 of 2008, instituted at Nakawa Magistrates Court, wherein the four applicants, namely Joachim Buwembo, Bernard Tabaire, 30 Emmanuel Davies Gyezaho and Mukasa Robert, were jointly charged with libel, contrary to sections 179 and 22 of the Penal Code Act. 1 The facts giving rise to this charge are that the said applicants who are journalists with the Monitor Newspaper, published articles in their Sunday issues of 19th and 26th August 2007 captioned “IGG IN SALARY SCANDAL” and “GOD’S WARRIOR FAITH MWONDHA 5 STUMBLES” respectively. Following a complaint to the police by the Hon. Lady Justice Faith Mwondha, the IGG, the applicants were investigated and later charged, at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nakawa, with the offence of unlawful publication of defamatory matter under sections 179 and 22 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120).
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY S~NATOR BILL LOCKYER, CHAIRMAN Special Hearing on THE PROCESS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT MARCH 19, 1985 111137 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 l' in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily 1'1 represent the official position or pOlicies of the National !l1stitute of ........ Justice . ....... ...... ....... r p. 0:::«z -<C Z to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). ~~ Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ [J,J '--J.U sion of the copyright owner. 0:= oe= O~ ::J ::><C l­ -:>J: CI}:C « e= to -I zC: t:f) Cl)CrJ CO Ql (/) offi r: 0"1,........ ?Z ..... "'-I .... &) Q;:) lad .. C<Q 0 -c.9 UJr 0"1 'f:" fa Z ,........ ~ [J,J UJ~ C» U as r -I (---4U .., Q :: O;J :r: I""'l (3)""'" « (-0_ -I I'!~ IG U U >- ;:J -z -0"" ~~ 0:: < 2:-1 U ~ ~ 0 0:= <» « ::Ed ,..J ~ 0 o 00 e- ~ ~ 0 el) -I--- '-U~ « uO:=o U LLll­ :ct: (-<C ~~ ZllJ«Z W{/) ~ en U SPECIAL HEARING ON THE PROCESS OF CAPITAL PUNISFlMENl' CASES March 19, 1985 Senate Judiciary Committee Bill Lockyer, Chairman Ed Davis Nicholas C. Pettis Jolm Doolittle Robert Presley Barry Keene Art Torres Mil ton Marks Diane Watson Senate Judiciary Ccmnittee Tuesday, March 19, 1985 1 :30 p.m., Roan 4203 AGENDA: TI1E PROCESS OF A CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CASE 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • 1192.7. (C) As Used in This Section, "Serious Felony"
    Penal Code 1192.7 (c) 1192.7. (c) As used in this section, "serious felony" means any of the following: (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any burglary of the first degree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison
    [Show full text]
  • SM. Criminal Attempt., Model Penal Code § 5.01
    § SM. Criminal Attempt., Model Penal Code § 5.01 Uniform Laws Annotated Model Penal Code (Refs & Annos) Part I. General Provisions Article 5. Inchoate Crimes Model Penal Code § 5.01 § 5.01. Criminal Attempt. Currentness (1) Definition of Attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he: (a) purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or (b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; or (c) purposely does or omits to do anything that, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime. (2) Conduct That May Be Held Substantial Step Under Subsection (1)(c). Conduct shall not be held to constitute a substantial step under Subsection (1)(c) of this Section unless it is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. Without negativing the sufficiency of other conduct, the following, if strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose, shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law: (a) lying in wait, searching for or 'following the contemplated victim of the crime; (b) enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission; (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime; (d) unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed; (e) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, that are specially designed for such unlawful use or that can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances; WEST A.
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL CODE (Wholly Amended As of Jan
    CRIMINAL CODE (Wholly amended as of Jan. 1, 1998) PART I GENERAL RULES CHAPTER I LIMIT OF APPLICABILITY OF CRIMINAL CODE Article 1 (Criminality and Punishability of Act) (1) The criminality and punishability of an act shall be determined by the law in effect at the time of the commission of that act. (2) When a law is changed after the commission of a crime, such act thereby no longer constitutes a crime under the new law, or the punishment therefore under the new law becomes less severe than under the previous law, the new law shall apply. (3) When a law is changed after the sentence for a crime committed under the previous law has become final and such act thereby no longer constitutes a crime, the execution of the punishment shall be remitted. Article 2 (Domestic Crimes) This Act shall apply to both Korean nationals and aliens who commit crimes in the territory of the Republic of Korea. Article 3 (Crimes by Koreans outside Korea) This Act shall apply to all Korean nationals who commit crimes outside the territory of the Republic of Korea. Article 4 (Crimes by Aliens on Board Korean Vessel, etc. outside Korea) This Act shall apply to aliens who commit crimes on board a Korean vessel or Korean aircraft outside the territory of the Republic of Korea. Article 5 (Crimes by Aliens outside Korea) This Act shall apply to aliens who commit any of the following crimes outside the territory of the Republic of Korea: Crimes concerning insurrection; Crimes concerning foreign aggression; Crimes concerning the national flag; Crimes concerning currency; Crimes concerning securities, postage and revenue stamps; Crimes specified in Articles 225 through 230 among crimes concerning documents; and Crimes specified in Article 238 among crimes concerning seals.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13, Crimes Against Property
    Chapter 13 CHAPTER 13: CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY INTRODUCTION Crimes against property can take many forms and have many different names. Texas prefers “theft” over the older term ‘larceny,’ has a consolidate theft statute, and a whole chapter dealing with computer crimes. Like all states, Texas has statutes dealing with robbery and forgery. Theft, embezzlement, and related statutes are found in Texas Penal Code (TPC) ch. 31, “Theft:” http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/word/pe.007.00.000031.00.doc The robbery statutes are found in TPC ch. 29: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/word/pe.007.00.000029.00.doc TPC ch. 32 “Fraud” contains forgery, credit card abuse and related statutes: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/word/pe.007.00.000032.00.doc “Computer Crimes” are found in ch. 33 of the TPC: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/word/pe.007.00.000033.00.doc THEFT Like many states, Texas has a consolidated theft statute: Sec. 31.02 provides: CONSOLIDATION OF THEFT OFFENSES. Theft as defined in Section 31.03 constitutes a single offense superseding the separate offenses previously known as theft, theft by false pretext, conversion by a bailee, theft from the person, shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling, swindling by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving or concealing embezzled property, and receiving or concealing stolen property. The consolidated theft statute (sec. 31.03) is a long, complex and difficult statute. There are three basic ways to commit theft: (b) (1), (2) and (3).
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Capital Punishment in the Law of Criminal Homicide*
    A PUNISHMENT IN SEARCH OF A CRIME: STANDARDS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE LAW OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE* FRANKLIN E. ZIMRING** GORDON HAWKINS*** The substantive criminal law is rarely discussed in debates about the wisdom and utility of the death penalty. But the criminal law of homicide, important in its own right, also provides insight into the problems of selection, moral coherence, and practical ad- ministration that bedevil attempts to harness the punishment of death for public purposes. If that task is to be performed, the sub- stantive criminal law must be the mechanism by which it is accom- plished. Yet, since mid-century, the attempt to fashion standards for capital sentencing has been a fight against historical forces stronger than the power of legal classification. The current juris- prudence of death thus demonstrates the futility of the exercise. In this essay, we discuss the development of standards for the death penalty in the Model Penal Code (the Code), analyze the influ- ence of the Code provisions on modem death penalty legislation in the states, and question whe.ther legal standards are closely linked to the propensity to condemn murders and conduct executions. We conclude that efforts to provide a legal rationale for executions oc- curred far too late in the progress toward abolition of capital pun- ishment in Western Society to have any hope of success. I. A PENAL PARADIGM The most ambitious attempt to define the principles of substan- tive criminal law, at least in this century, is the American Law Insti- tute's Model Penal Code. A product of reform efforts in the 1950s and 1960s, the Code addressed the issue of standards for capital punish- * A version of this essay was delivered by Frank Zimring as the Simon E.
    [Show full text]
  • PENAL CODE (Act No.45 of 1907)
    この刑法の翻訳は、平成十八年法律第三六号までの改正(平成18年5月28日施行) について、」 「法令用語日英標準対訳辞書 (平成18年3月版)に準拠して作成したもので す。 なお、この法令の翻訳は公定訳ではありません。法的効力を有するのは日本語の法令自 体であり、翻訳はあくまでその理解を助けるための参考資料です。この翻訳の利用に伴っ て発生した問題について、一切の責任を負いかねますので、法律上の問題に関しては、官 報に掲載された日本語の法令を参照してください。 This English translation of the Penal Code has been prepared (up to the revisions of Act No. 36 of 2006(Effective May 28, 2006)) in compliance with the Standard Bilingual Dictionary (March 2006 edition). This is an unofficial translation. Only the original Japanese texts of laws and regulations have legal effect, and the translations are to be used solely as reference material to aid in the understanding of Japanese laws and regulations. The Government of Japan shall not be responsible for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the legislative material provided in this Website, or for any consequence resulting from use of the information in this Website. For all purposes of interpreting and applying law to any legal issue or dispute, users should consult the original Japanese texts published in the Official Gazette. PENAL CODE (Act No.45 of 1907) PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter I. Scope of Application Article 1. (Crimes Committed within Japan) (1) This Code shall apply to anyone who commits a crime within the territory of Japan. (2) The same shall apply to anyone who commits a crime on board a Japanese vessel or aircraft outside the territory of Japan. Article 2. (Crimes Committed outside Japan) This Code shall apply to anyone who commits one of the following crimes outside the territory of Japan: (i)
    [Show full text]
  • KOREA, Democratic People's Republic Of.DOCX
    DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA See endnote EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) is an authoritarian state led by the Kim family for more than 60 years. On December 30, Kim Jong Un was named supreme commander of the Korean People’s Army following the December 17 death of his father Kim Jong Il. Kim Jong Un’s grandfather, the late Kim Il Sung, remains “eternal president.” The most recent national elections, held in March 2009, were neither free nor fair. Security forces report to the supreme leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, and to the civilians and military officers that form the National Defense Commission, the supreme ruling body of the state. Citizens did not have the right to change their government. The government subjected citizens to rigid controls over many aspects of their lives, including denial of the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement and worker rights. There continued to be reports of a vast network of political prison camps in which conditions were often harsh and life threatening. Defectors continued to report extrajudicial killings, disappearances, arbitrary detention, arrests of political prisoners, and torture. The judiciary was not independent and did not provide fair trials. There continued to be reports of severe punishment of some repatriated refugees and their family members. There were reports of trafficked women among refugees and workers crossing the border into China. The government made no known attempts to prosecute officials who committed human rights abuses. Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Chapter 31. Theft
    PENAL CODE TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY CHAPTER 31. THEFT Sec.A31.01.AADEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1)AA"Deception" means: (A)AAcreating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true; (B)AAfailing to correct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, that the actor previously created or confirmed by words or conduct, and that the actor does not now believe to be true; (C)AApreventing another from acquiring information likely to affect his judgment in the transaction; (D)AAselling or otherwise transferring or encumbering property without disclosing a lien, security interest, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether the lien, security interest, claim, or impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or (E)AApromising performance that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and that the actor does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed, except that failure to perform the promise in issue without other evidence of intent or knowledge is not sufficient proof that the actor did not intend to perform or knew the promise would not be performed. (2)AA"Deprive" means: (A)AAto withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; (B)AAto restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (C)AAto dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.
    [Show full text]