DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents Title 18 Crimes and Offenses Part I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Title 18 Crimes and Offenses Part I TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE 18 CRIMES AND OFFENSES PART I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Chapter 1. General Provisions § 101. Short title of title. § 102. Territorial applicability. § 103. Definitions. § 104. Purposes. § 105. Principles of construction. § 106. Classes of offenses. § 107. Application of preliminary provisions. § 108. Time limitations. § 109. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense. § 110. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense. § 111. When prosecution barred by former prosecution in another jurisdiction. § 112. Former prosecution before court lacking jurisdiction or when fraudulently procured by the defendant. Chapter 3. Culpability § 301. Requirement of voluntary act. § 302. General requirements of culpability. § 303. Causal relationship between conduct and result. § 304. Ignorance or mistake. § 305. Limitations on scope of culpability requirements. § 306. Liability for conduct of another; complicity. § 307. Liability of organizations and certain related persons. § 308. Intoxication or drugged condition. § 309. Duress. § 310. Military orders. § 311. Consent. § 312. De minimis infractions. § 313. Entrapment. § 314. Guilty but mentally ill. § 315. Insanity. Chapter 5. General Principles of Justification § 501. Definitions. § 502. Justification a defense. § 503. Justification generally. § 504. Execution of public duty. § 505. Use of force in self-protection. § 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons. § 507. Use of force for the protection of property. § 508. Use of force in law enforcement. § 509. Use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others. § 510. Justification in property crimes. Chapter 7. Responsibility (Reserved) Chapter 9. Inchoate Crimes § 901. Criminal attempt. § 902. Criminal solicitation. § 903. Criminal conspiracy. § 904. Incapacity, irresponsibility or immunity of party to solicitation or conspiracy. § 905. Grading of criminal attempt, solicitation and conspiracy. § 906. Multiple convictions of inchoate crimes barred. § 907. Possessing instruments of crime. § 908. Prohibited offensive weapons. § 908.1. Use or possession of electric or electronic incapacitation device. § 909. Manufacture, distribution or possession of master keys for motor vehicles. § 910. Manufacture, distribution, use or possession of devices for theft of telecommunications services. § 911. Corrupt organizations. § 912. Possession of weapon on school property. § 913. Possession of firearm or other dangerous weapon in court facility. Chapter 11. Authorized Disposition of Offenders § 1101. Fines. § 1102. Sentence for murder, murder of unborn child and murder of law enforcement officer. § 1102.1. Sentence of persons under the age of 18 for murder, murder of an unborn child and murder of a law enforcement officer. § 1103. Sentence of imprisonment for felony. § 1104. Sentence of imprisonment for misdemeanors. § 1105. Sentence of imprisonment for summary offenses. § 1106. Restitution for injuries to person or property. § 1107. Restitution for theft of timber. § 1107.1. Restitution for identity theft. § 1108. District attorneys' standing and interest in prisoner litigation. § 1109. Costs. § 1110. Restitution for cleanup of clandestine laboratories. § 1111. Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition prohibited. Chapter 13. Authority of Court in Sentencing (Transferred) Subchapter A. General Provisions (Transferred) § 1301 (Transferred). Subchapter B. Sentencing Authority (Transferred) § 1311 & § 1312 (Transferred). Subchapter C. Sentencing Alternatives (Transferred) § 1321 - § 1326 (Transferred). Subchapter D. Informational Basis of Sentence (Transferred) § 1331 - § 1337 (Transferred). Subchapter E. Imposition of Sentence (Transferred) § 1351 - § 1362 (Transferred). Subchapter F. Further Judicial Action (Transferred) § 1371 & § 1372 (Transferred). Subchapter G. Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (Repealed or Transferred) § 1381 - § 1385 (Repealed). § 1386 (Transferred). PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES ARTICLE A. OFFENSES AGAINST EXISTENCE OR STABILITY OF GOVERNMENT Chapter 21. Offenses Against the Flag § 2101. Display of flag at public meetings. § 2102. Desecration of flag. § 2103. Insults to national or Commonwealth flag. ARTICLE B. OFFENSES INVOLVING DANGER TO THE PERSON Chapter 23. General Provisions § 2301. Definitions. Chapter 25. Criminal Homicide § 2501. Criminal homicide. § 2502. Murder. § 2503. Voluntary manslaughter. § 2504. Involuntary manslaughter. § 2505. Causing or aiding suicide. § 2506. Drug delivery resulting in death. § 2507. Criminal homicide of law enforcement officer. Chapter 26. Crimes Against Unborn Child § 2601. Short title of chapter. § 2602. Definitions. § 2603. Criminal homicide of unborn child. § 2604. Murder of unborn child. § 2605. Voluntary manslaughter of unborn child. § 2606. Aggravated assault of unborn child. § 2607. Culpability. § 2608. Nonliability and defenses. § 2609. Construction. Chapter 27. Assault § 2701. Simple assault. § 2702. Aggravated assault. § 2702.1. Assault of law enforcement officer. § 2703. Assault by prisoner. § 2703.1. Aggravated harassment by prisoner. § 2704. Assault by life prisoner. § 2705. Recklessly endangering another person. § 2706. Terroristic threats. § 2707. Propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle or onto a roadway. § 2707.1. Discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure. § 2707.2. Paintball guns and paintball markers. § 2708. Use of tear or noxious gas in labor disputes. § 2709. Harassment. § 2709.1. Stalking. § 2710. Ethnic intimidation. § 2711. Probable cause arrests in domestic violence cases. § 2712. Assault on sports official. § 2713. Neglect of care-dependent person. § 2713.1. Abuse of care-dependent person. § 2714. Unauthorized administration of intoxicant. § 2715. Threat to use weapons of mass destruction. § 2716. Weapons of mass destruction. § 2717. Terrorism. § 2718. Strangulation. Chapter 28. Antihazing § 2801. Definitions. § 2802. Hazing. § 2803. Aggravated hazing. § 2804. Organizational hazing. § 2805. Institutional hazing. § 2806. Defenses prohibited. § 2807. Forfeiture. § 2808. Enforcement by institution and secondary school. § 2809. Institutional reports. § 2810. Safe harbor. § 2811. Civil remedies. Chapter 29. Kidnapping § 2901. Kidnapping. § 2902. Unlawful restraint. § 2903. False imprisonment. § 2904. Interference with custody of children. § 2905. Interference with custody of committed persons. § 2906. Criminal coercion. § 2907. Disposition of ransom. § 2908. Missing children. § 2909. Concealment of whereabouts of a child. § 2910. Luring a child into a motor vehicle or structure. Chapter 30. Human Trafficking Subchapter A. General Provisions § 3001. Definitions. Subchapter B. Prosecution of Human Trafficking § 3011. Trafficking in individuals. § 3012. Involuntary servitude. § 3013. Patronizing a victim of sexual servitude. § 3014. Unlawful conduct regarding documents. § 3015. Nonpayment of wages. § 3016. Obstruction of justice. § 3017. Violation by business entities. § 3018. Evidence and defenses to human trafficking. § 3019. Victim protection during prosecution. § 3020. Restitution. § 3021. Asset forfeiture. § 3022. Professional licenses. § 3023. Cumulative remedies. § 3024. Sentencing. § 3025. Data collection. § 3026. Concurrent jurisdiction. Subchapter C. Prevention of Human Trafficking § 3031. Grants. § 3032. (Reserved). Subchapter D. Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking § 3051. Civil causes of action. § 3052. Protection of victims. § 3053. Appropriate implementation for minor victims of human trafficking (Repealed). § 3054. Services. § 3055. Victims in shelters. § 3056. Special relief to restore victim's dignity and autonomy. Subchapter D.1. Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children § 3061. Statewide protocol. § 3062. Specialized services for sexually exploited children. § 3063. Law enforcement training. § 3064. Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund. § 3065. Safe harbor for sexually exploited children. Subchapter E. Miscellaneous Provisions § 3071. Funding. § 3072. Nonexclusivity. Chapter 31. Sexual Offenses Subchapter A. General Provisions § 3101. Definitions. § 3102. Mistake as to age. § 3103. Spouse relationships (Repealed). § 3104. Evidence of victim's sexual conduct. § 3105. Prompt complaint. § 3106. Testimony of complainants. § 3107. Resistance not required. Subchapter B. Definition of Offenses § 3121. Rape. § 3122. Statutory rape (Repealed). § 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault. § 3123. Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. § 3124. Voluntary deviate sexual intercourse (Repealed). § 3124.1. Sexual assault. § 3124.2. Institutional sexual assault. § 3124.3. Sexual assault by sports official, volunteer or employee of nonprofit association. § 3125. Aggravated indecent assault. § 3126. Indecent assault. § 3127. Indecent exposure. § 3128. Spousal sexual assault (Repealed). § 3129. Sexual intercourse with animal. § 3130. Conduct relating to sex offenders. § 3131. Unlawful dissemination of intimate image. § 3132. Female mutiliation. § 3133. Sexual extortion. Subchapter C. Loss of Property Rights § 3141. General rule. § 3142. Process and seizure (Repealed). § 3143. Custody of property (Repealed). § 3144. Disposal of property (Repealed). Chapter 32. Abortion § 3201. Short title of chapter. § 3202. Legislative intent. § 3203. Definitions. § 3204. Medical consultation and judgment. § 3205. Informed consent. § 3206. Parental consent. § 3207. Abortion facilities. § 3208. Printed information. § 3208.1. Commonwealth
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presumptive Mens Rea: an Analysis of the Federal Judiciary's Retreat from Sandstrom V
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 64 | Issue 3 Article 4 6-1-1999 Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of the Federal Judiciary's Retreat from Sandstrom v. Montana Laurie A. Briggs Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Laurie A. Briggs, Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of the Federal Judiciary's Retreat from Sandstrom v. Montana, 64 Notre Dame L. Rev. 367 (1989). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol64/iss3/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES Presumptive Mens Rea: An Analysis of the Federal Judiciary's Retreat from Sandstrom v. Montana Direct or empirical evidence rarely provides proof of mens rea, a criti- cal element of most crimes.1 The practical difficulties inherent in prov- ing that a criminal defendant had the requisite state of mind have led to presumptions 2 of mens rea. Thejudiciary's attempt to provide a constitu- tional standard for the use of presumptions in criminal trials culminated in Sandstrom v. Montana.3 In Sandstrom, the Supreme Court held that the jury instruction, "[t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts," violates due process.4 Sandstrom and its progeny have provoked both controversy and chaos in the legal community. This Note examines the goals embodied in Sand- strom and the extent to which these goals have been frustrated by the federal judiciary's treatment of Sandstrom during the past decade.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation
    Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1993 In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation Janet Ainsworth Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Janet Ainsworth, In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation, 103 YALE L.J. 259 (1993). https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/287 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation Janet E. Ainswortht CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 260 II. How WE Do THINGS WITH WORDS .............................. 264 A. Performative Speech Acts ................................. 264 B. Indirect Speech Acts as Performatives ......................... 267 C. ConversationalImplicature Modifying Literal Meaning ............. 268 H. GENDER AND LANGUAGE USAGE: A DIFFERENT REGISTER .............. 271 A. Characteristicsof the Female Register ........................ 275 1. Hedges ........................................... 276 2. Tag Questions ...................................... 277 t Associate Professor of Law, University of Puget Sound School of Law. B.A. Brandeis University, M.A. Yale University, J.D. Harvard Law School. My appreciative thanks go to Harriet Capron and Blain Johnson for their able research assistance. I am also indebted to Melinda Branscomb, Jacqueline Charlesworth, Annette Clark, Sid DeLong, Carol Eastman, Joel Handler, Robin Lakoff, Debbie Maranville, Chris Rideout, Kellye Testy, Austin Sarat, and David Skover for their helpful comments and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogation Nation: Refugees and Spies in Cold War Germany Douglas Selvage / Office of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records
    Interrogation Nation: Refugees and Spies in Cold War Germany Douglas Selvage / Office of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records In Interrogation Nation: Refugees and Spies in Cold War Germany, historian Keith R. Allen analyzes the “overlooked story of refugee screening in West Germany” (p. xv). Building upon his previous German-language study focused on such screening at the Marienfelde Refugee Center in West Berlin (Befragung - Überprüfung - Kontrolle: die Aufnahme von DDR- Flüchtlingen in West-Berlin bis 1961, Berlin: Ch. Links, 2013), Allen examines the places, personalities, and practices of refugee screening by the three Western Powers, as well as the German federal government, in West Berlin and throughout West Germany. The topic is particularly timely since, as Allen notes, many of “the screening programs established during the darkest days of the Cold War” (p. xv) continue today, although their targets have shifted. The current political debates about foreign and domestic intelligence activities in Germany, including the issue of refugee screening, echo earlier disputes from the years of the Bonn Republic. The central questions remain: To what extent have citizenship rights and the Federal Republic’s sovereignty been compromised by foreign and domestic intelligence agencies – largely with the consent of the German government – in the name of security? BERLINER KOLLEG KALTER KRIEG | BERLIN CENTER FOR COLD WAR STUDIES 2017 Douglas Selvage Interrogation Nation Allen divides his study into three parts. In Part I, he focuses on “places” – the various sites in occupied West Berlin and western Germany where refugees were interrogated. He sifts through the alphabet soup of acronyms of US, British, French, and eventually West German civilian and military intelligence services and deciphers the cover names of the institutions and locations at which they engaged in screening activities during the Cold War and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 56 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for THE
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, : GUARDIAN CIVIC LEAGUE OF : CIVIL ACTION NO. PHILADELPHIA, ASPIRA, INC. OF : PENNSYLVANIA, RESIDENTS : 2000-CV-2463 ADVISORY BOARD, NORTHEAST : HOME SCHOOL AND BOARD, and : PHILADELPHIA CITIZENS FOR : CHILDREN AND YOUTH, : : Plaintiffs; : : v. : : BERETTA U.S.A., CORP., : BROWNING, INC., BRYCO ARMS, : INC., COLT’S MANUFACTURING : CO., GLOCK, INC., HARRINGTON & : RICHARDSON, INC., : INTERNATIONAL ARMAMENT : INDUSTRIES, INC., KEL-TEC, CNC, : LORCIN ENGINEERING CO., : NAVEGAR, INC., PHOENIX/RAVEN : ARMS, SMITH & WESSON CORP., : STURM, RUGER & CO., and TAURUS : INTERNATIONAL FIREARMS, : ET AL., : : Defendants. : O P I N I O N Date: December 20, 2000 Schiller, J. Page 1 of 56 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 3 STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS ......................................... 4 REGULATION OF FIREARMS .................................................. 5 FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT ......................................... 6 DISCUSSION ................................................................ 8 I. Philadelphia’s suit is barred by the Uniform Firearms Act (“UFA”) .......... 8 A. Section 6120 ................................................ 8 B. Section 6120(a.1) (“UFA Amendment”) ......................... 10 1. Plain meaning ........................................ 10 2. Impetus for statute .................................... 11 3. Legislative history ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • PICS Denial Challenge Form
    SP 4-197 (9-2016) PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE PENNSYLVANIA INSTANT CHECK SYSTEM CHALLENGE Any challenge to a decision made by the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) concerning a background check must be completed and submitted by mail (faxed copies will not be accepted), within 30 days from the date of denial to the Pennsylvania State Police, Firearms Division, PICS Challenge Section, 1800 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110. Only background checks processed through PICS that were NOT approved will be processed by the Pennsylvania State Police, PICS Challenge Section. Please type or print clearly with blue or black ink. ALL CHALLENGES SUBMITTED MUST BE LEGIBLE AND SIGNED AND DATED ON PAGE 4 BY THE APPLICANT OR THEY WILL BE RETURNED. The Pennsylvania State Police will respond in writing within 5 business days of receipt of this form. You are encouraged to provide additional information for the purpose of review, such as information you may have regarding dispositions on old arrest records, etc., that may be helpful in expediting the processing of your file. Be advised that within 60 days of receipt of a valid challenge, a final decision will be provided to you by this Office. You may also file a separate appeal with the FBI, NICS Section. PART I: REASON FOR CHALLENGE REQUEST- Check the appropriate box that indicates the type of background check: Purchase/Transfer License to Carry Firearm Return RLEIA/LEOSA PART II: DATE AND LOCATION OF BACKGROUND CHECK Date of background check: Location of Firearm Dealer/County Sheriff/Police
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Strategies of a World-Class Cybersecurity Operations Center Conveys MITRE’S Expertise on Accumulated Expertise on Enterprise-Grade Computer Network Defense
    Bleed rule--remove from file Bleed rule--remove from file MITRE’s accumulated Ten Strategies of a World-Class Cybersecurity Operations Center conveys MITRE’s expertise on accumulated expertise on enterprise-grade computer network defense. It covers ten key qualities enterprise- grade of leading Cybersecurity Operations Centers (CSOCs), ranging from their structure and organization, computer MITRE network to processes that best enable effective and efficient operations, to approaches that extract maximum defense Ten Strategies of a World-Class value from CSOC technology investments. This book offers perspective and context for key decision Cybersecurity Operations Center points in structuring a CSOC and shows how to: • Find the right size and structure for the CSOC team Cybersecurity Operations Center a World-Class of Strategies Ten The MITRE Corporation is • Achieve effective placement within a larger organization that a not-for-profit organization enables CSOC operations that operates federally funded • Attract, retain, and grow the right staff and skills research and development • Prepare the CSOC team, technologies, and processes for agile, centers (FFRDCs). FFRDCs threat-based response are unique organizations that • Architect for large-scale data collection and analysis with a assist the U.S. government with limited budget scientific research and analysis, • Prioritize sensor placement and data feed choices across development and acquisition, enteprise systems, enclaves, networks, and perimeters and systems engineering and integration. We’re proud to have If you manage, work in, or are standing up a CSOC, this book is for you. served the public interest for It is also available on MITRE’s website, www.mitre.org. more than 50 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Tradecraft Primer: a Framework for Aspiring Interrogators
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 9 Number 4 Volume 9, No. 4, Special Issue Winter 2016: Understanding and Article 11 Resolving Complex Strategic Security Issues Tradecraft Primer: A Framework for Aspiring Interrogators. By Paul Charles Topalian. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016. Mark J. Roberts Subject Matter Expert Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss pp. 139-141 Recommended Citation Roberts, Mark J.. "Tradecraft Primer: A Framework for Aspiring Interrogators. By Paul Charles Topalian. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016.." Journal of Strategic Security 9, no. 4 (2016) : 139-141. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.9.4.1576 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol9/iss4/11 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tradecraft Primer: A Framework for Aspiring Interrogators. By Paul Charles Topalian. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016. This book review is available in Journal of Strategic Security: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/ vol9/iss4/11 Roberts: Tradecraft Primer: A Framework for Aspiring Interrogators. By Pau Tradecraft Primer: A Framework for Aspiring Interrogators. By Paul Charles Topalian. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016. ISBN 978-1-4987-5114-8. Photographs. Figures. Sources cited. Index. Pp. xv, 140. $59.95. Interrogation is a word fraught with many inferences and implications. Revelations of waterboarding, incidents in Abu Graib and Guantanamo, and allegations of police impropriety in obtaining confessions have all cast the topic in a negative light in recent years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principle of the Presumption of Innocence and Its Challenges in the Ethiopian Criminal Process
    THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND ITS CHALLENGES IN THE ETHIOPIAN CRIMINAL PROCESS Simeneh Kiros Assefa, Esq. ♣ Abstract The administration of the criminal justice system tries to strike a balance between the search for truth and the fairness of the process. To this end, the law should protect individual rights and impose various legal burdens on the state. One such tool is the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty . This is a constitutional principle under Ethiopian law and requires the public prosecutor to prove each element constituting the crime which, as argued in this article, should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, this principle is being violated by various subsidiary laws, procedures and practices. First, there are various provisions in the criminal law that limit (or arguably disregard) this constitutional principle. Such criminal law provisions assume as proved the existence of some of the elements of certain crimes without requiring the public prosecutor to submit evidence. Second, the Criminal Justice Administration Policy adopted in 2011 contemplates shifting the burden of proof to the defendant in selected serious crimes. Third, the courts also wrongly shift burden of proof to the accused regarding certain facts in various court decisions. These laws and judicial practices deprive the accused of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This article, inter alia , examines the constitutionality of such shifting of the burden of proof and also analyzes the standards of proof that are required in criminal cases in the Ethiopian context. Key words Presumption of innocence, burden of proof, criminal process, criminal justice, confessions, Ethiopia DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v6i2.4 ______________ Introduction The state has the primary responsibility of detection, apprehension, prosecution and conviction of offenders.
    [Show full text]
  • Information for Pennsylvania Firearm Purchasers and Basic Firearm Safety
    § 3502 Burglary 4. has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has person is eligible to purchase a firearm or acquire a SP 4-135 (10-2008) § 3503 Criminal trespass, if a felony of the been involuntarily committed to a mental institution license to carry a firearm. second degree or higher for treatment under § 302, 303, or 304 under the § 3701 Robbery Mental Health Procedures Act (P.L. 817, No. 143); or Pennsylvania Firearm Dealers and County Sheriffs INFORMATION FOR 5. is an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United access the PICS program through a toll free telephone § 3702 Robbery of motor vehicle States; or number. Operation has shown that approximately 91% PENNSYLVANIA § 3921 Theft by unlawful taking or disposition, 6. is the subject of an active protection from abuse of the individuals attempting to purchase a firearm can FIREARM PURCHASERS upon conviction of the second felony order issued pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108, relating be approved while on the initial call. offense to relief, which order provides for the relinquishment § 3923 Theft by extortion, when the offense is of firearms; or By law, no record information may be disseminated as & accompanied by threats of violence 7. was adjudicated delinquent (with conditions specified a result of the background check. At times, temporary § 3925 Receiving stolen property, upon in the UFA). With the exception of crimes committed delays may be necessary. If a record is identified and BASIC under sections 2502, 2503, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2901, is incomplete, it is necessary to research the record and conviction of the second felony offense FIREARM SAFETY §4906 False reports to law enforcement 3121, 3123, 3301, 3502, 3701, and 3923, this contact the agency(s) that may be able to provide prohibition may terminate 15 years after the last information required in order to complete the authorities, if the fictitious report applicable delinquent adjudication or upon the background check.
    [Show full text]
  • False Presumptions Counter to the Presumptions of Innocence G
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 7 | Issue 6 Article 7 1917 False Presumptions Counter to the Presumptions of Innocence G. P. Garrett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation G. P. Garrett, False Presumptions Counter to the Presumptions of Innocence, 7 J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 851 (May 1916 to March 1917) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. FALSE PRESUMPTIONS COUNTER TO THlE PRESUMPTIONS OF INNOCENCE G. P. GAmRT" American criminal procedure is condemned as ineffective, because delay and technicality intervene on behalf of the accused. The sanc- tion of the law is neither swift tior inexorable. Not only do "the wicked flee where no man pursueth," but the prisoner enmeshed is preserved from punishment by over-sedulous respect for his rights. Mr. Justice Holmes, in his lectures on the common law, says that the law must express the prevailing sentiment of the community. Our criminal law is commonly supposed to do so, aid in consequence, critics and censors vent upon the community their japes and quirks at the present state of our criminal justice. Yet, in fact, our adminis- tration of the criminal law does not reflect or mirror the public mind upon the matter. Much of the practice, many of the forms, most of the rules and principles that are operative in the criminal courts to-day are the heritage of olden days.
    [Show full text]
  • A Suggested Role for Rebuttable Presumptions in Antitrust Restraint of Trade Litigation
    NOTES A SUGGESTED ROLE FOR REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS IN ANTITRUST RESTRAINT OF TRADE LITIGATION The United States, having abandoned its contention that the re- straints in the present case are per se violations of the Sherman Act, now urges "a standard of presumptive illegality," presumably on the basis of a showing that a product has been distributed by means of arrangementsfor territorialexclusivity and restrictedretail and whole- sale customers. We do not consider this additionalsubtlety which was not advanced in the trial court. The burden of proof in antitrust cases remains with the plaintiff, deriving such help as may be available in the circumstancesfrom particularizedrules articulatedby law-such as the per se doctrine. United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., While the burden of proof is a significant aspect of adjudication in every field of law,2 perhaps nowhere as in the area of civil antitrust restraint of trade litigation is the allocation of the burden such a central element in each controversy. Yet because the burden of proof in restraint of trade cases is allocated by means of rules with substan- tive content as well, the question of the procedural adequacy of those rules is largely overlooked. The basic supposition underlying enforcement of section 1 of the Sherman Act3 is that it prohibits only those business practices which threaten to impose unreasonable restraints on trade. Although such an interpretation was at first rejected by the courts,4 it is true, as 1. 388 U.S. 365, 374 n.4 (1967). 2. Courts often resort to burden of proof rules because: [plolicies can be promoted or stifled smoothly, quietly, and without controversy.
    [Show full text]