Adultery Penalty Revised Penal Code
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
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 -
Advocate October 101614 -FINAL with NAMES in TITLE
The Advocate www.dpa.ky.gov October 2014 The Kentucky Penal Code: Forty Years of Unresolved Tension and Conflict Between Sentencing Philosophies By Ernie Lewis and Dan Goyette product of what had been inherited from Virginia and the common law. The Kentucky Constitution Watch out for those who “constantly cudgel of 1792 stated that all laws in force on June 1, their brains to think of new things to punish, 1792 from Virginia were also in force in Kentucky, and severer penalties to inflict on others.” including common law from England prior to Clarence Darrow March 24, 1607.¹ Specific sentences were included with each criminal law. “The statutory law had grown haphazardly over the better part “The purposes of the Penal Code will be of two centuries.”² The “great body of substantive criminal law was not in the statutes Ernie Lewis Dan Goyette subverted if the legislature persists in Executive Director Executive Director/Chief continuing the current trend toward at all… It resided in the restless ocean of common National Association for Public Defender law, some of it floating near the surface for Public Defense Louisville Public proliferation of statutory law. This will Defender’s Office cause undue complexity and substantially everyday observation, and therefore quite impair the functional approach contained in familiar, and some of it virtually indefinable in the Model Penal Code was Columbia University’s the Code. New criminal legislation must be obscurity of the deep.”³ Often, laws were Herbert Wechsler, who had participated in the carefully considered lest it conflict with redundant, inconsistent or outright Nuremberg trials. -
Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner
FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years). -
Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected]
Mitchell Hamline School of Law Mitchell Hamline Open Access Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Mitchell Hamline Events Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward 2013 Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota- criminal-code Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Sampsell-Jones, Ted, "Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code" (2013). Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward. Paper 4. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota-criminal-code/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mitchell Hamline Events at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones I. Introduction When Minnesota engaged in the great reform and recodification effort that led to the Criminal Code of 1963, it was part of a nationwide reform movement. That movement was spurred in large part by the American Law Institute and its Model Penal Code. The Minnesota drafters were influenced by the MPC, and at least in some areas, adopted MPC recommendations. The MPC’s most significant innovation was in the law of mens rea—the body of law concerning the mental state or “guilty mind” necessary for criminal liability. -
CRIME How to Respond to Unlawful Behaviour Crime Is an Undeniable Part of Our Lives; Unfortunately We May Find Ourselves Victims
CRIME How to respond to unlawful behaviour Crime is an undeniable part of our lives; unfortunately we may find ourselves victims, perpetrators or witnesses of illegal actions varying in severity. To better understand the legality of certain actions (and inactions) is to be able to make ethical decisions to improve the safety in our communities. Are all crimes the same? NO. There are two categories of offences in the Criminal Code: indictable and summary. The category determines the jurisdiction of trial courts (provincial or superior), the possibility of having a jury trial or a preliminary inquiry, the application of limitation periods and the default maximum penalties. Summary offences are commonly known as the lesser offences. They carry a default maximum penalty (i.e. if not specified in the provision) of 6 months imprisonment and/or 5 000$ fine. They are subject to a limitation period of 6 months to start the prosecution. Indictable offences are commonly known as the most serious offences. They carry a default maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Subject to certain exceptions, there is no statute of limitations. What do I do if I witness a crime? Contact the police as early as possible. Write down any information you can remember to give a complete account to the police or in case you are called to testify at court. If you have any concerns, you should consult a lawyer. What if I committed a crime but didn’t know that it was illegal at the time? As stated by s. 19 of the Criminal Code, “ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing that offence.” What if I just helped someone commit a crime? (i.e. -
A Timely History of Cheating and Fraud Following Ivey V Genting Casinos (UK)
The honest cheat: a timely history of cheating and fraud following Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 Cerian Griffiths Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Lancaster University Law School1 Author email: [email protected] Abstract: The UK Supreme Court took the opportunity in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 to reverse the long-standing, but unpopular, test for dishonesty in R v Ghosh. It reduced the relevance of subjectivity in the test of dishonesty, and brought the civil and the criminal law approaches to dishonesty into line by adopting the test as laid down in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. This article employs extensive legal historical research to demonstrate that the Supreme Court in Ivey was too quick to dismiss the significance of the historical roots of dishonesty. Through an innovative and comprehensive historical framework of fraud, this article demonstrates that dishonesty has long been a central pillar of the actus reus of deceptive offences. The recognition of such significance permits us to situate the role of dishonesty in contemporary criminal property offences. This historical analysis further demonstrates that the Justices erroneously overlooked centuries of jurisprudence in their haste to unite civil and criminal law tests for dishonesty. 1 I would like to thank Lindsay Farmer, Dave Campbell, and Dave Ellis for giving very helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Angus MacCulloch, Phil Lawton, and the Lancaster Law School Peer Review College for their guidance in developing this paper. -
Res Judicata and Conspiracy John R
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 39 | Issue 1 Article 7 1948 Res Judicata and Conspiracy John R. Gehlbach 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 John R. Gehlbach, Res Judicata and Conspiracy, 39 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 58 (1948-1949) This Criminal Law 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. CRIMINAL LAW COMMENTS [Vol. 39 has been a tendency to carry its application to extremes. The minority approach of Texas and Maryland seems the more desirable; in other words, a waiver of the right of confrontation should be permitted only when personally requested by the accused, and when he has a full under- standing of the consequences.13 Three problems are raised in each case involving waiver: was the waiver actually made; if so, was it done know- ingly; and even if made with full knowledge, should it be permitted? The rule should not be permitted to operate automatically upon the re- quest of the defendant or his attorney. Some examination into the causes and circumstances which have resulted in the request should be made by the court, and discretion should be used in the granting or denial of such a request. KENN-r H. HANSON Res Judicata and Conspiracy The United States Supreme Court in Sealfon v. -
An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262 AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 1. Short Title.- This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004." Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy.- It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act: (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. -
Supreme Court of the United States ______
No. 19-373 __________________________________________________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ________________ JAMES WALKER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ________________ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ________________ EMILY HUGHES DANIEL T. HANSMEIER Co-Chair Amicus Counsel of Record Committee 500 State Avenue NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Suite 201 FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE Kansas City, KS 66101 474 Boyd Law Building (913) 551-6712 University of Iowa [email protected] College of Law Iowa City, IA 52242 Counsel for Amicus Curiae ________________________________________________ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 21, 24, 33.1, and 37(b), the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) moves this Court for leave to file the attached amicus brief in support of petitioners. The NAPD is an association of more than 14,000 professionals who deliver the right to counsel throughout all U.S. states and territories. NAPD members include attorneys, investigators, social workers, administrators, and other support staff who are responsible for executing the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, including regularly researching and providing advice to indigent clients in state and federal criminal cases. NAPD’s members are the advocates in jails, in courtrooms, and in communities and are experts in not only theoretical best practices, but also in the practical, day-to-day delivery of indigent defense representation. Their collective expertise represents state, county, and federal systems through full-time, contract, and assigned counsel delivery mechanisms, dedicated juvenile, capital and appellate offices, and through a diversity of traditional and holistic practice models. -
Crimes Against Property
9 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Is Alvarez guilty of false pretenses as a Learning Objectives result of his false claim of having received the Congressional Medal of 1. Know the elements of larceny. Honor? 2. Understand embezzlement and the difference between larceny and embezzlement. Xavier Alvarez won a seat on the Three Valley Water Dis- trict Board of Directors in 2007. On July 23, 2007, at 3. State the elements of false pretenses and the a joint meeting with a neighboring water district board, distinction between false pretenses and lar- newly seated Director Alvarez arose and introduced him- ceny by trick. self, stating “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired 4. Explain the purpose of theft statutes. in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Con- gressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by 5. List the elements of receiving stolen property the same guy. I’m still around.” Alvarez has never been and the purpose of making it a crime to receive awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, nor has he stolen property. spent a single day as a marine or in the service of any 6. Define forgery and uttering. other branch of the United States armed forces. The summer before his election to the water district board, 7. Know the elements of robbery and the differ- a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez’s propensity for ence between robbery and larceny. making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the Amer- 8. -
The American Model Penal Code: a Brief Overview
University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 7-27-2007 The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview Paul H. Robinson University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Markus D. Dubber University at Buffalo Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Robinson, Paul H. and Dubber, Markus D., "The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview" (2007). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 131. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/131 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE AMERICAN MODEL PENAL CODE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW Paul H. Robinson* and Markus D. Dubber** Ifthere can be said to be an ':A.merican criminal code, "the ModelPenal Code is it. Nonetheless, there remains an enormous diversity among the fifty-two American penal codes, including some that have never adopted a modern code format or structure. Yet, even within the minority of states without a modern code, the Model Penal Code has great influence, as courts regularly relyupon it to fashionthe law that the state'scriminal code failsto provide. In this essay we provide a briefintroduction to this historic document, its origins, and its content. INTRODUCTION Within the United States, there are fifty-two American criminal codes, with the federal criminal code overlaying the codes of each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. -
Anti-Corruption
INDEX Introduction to Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey (Japanese) ······································ ii Introduction to Anti-Corruption Regulation Survey (English) ······································· iv GLOSSARY ·························································································································· vi Africa Kenya ··································································································································· 1 South Africa ························································································································· 3 Asia Pacific Australia ······························································································································· 5 China ···································································································································· 7 Japan ····································································································································· 9 South Korea ························································································································ 11 Taiwan ································································································································ 13 Europe Austria ································································································································ 15 France ·································································································································