DOCSLIB.ORG

(REVISED·· Draft SENTENCING GUIDELINES

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. t) ,".. ,1:- / ... ~ (REVISED·· DRAfT " ~ 'I ~ . SENTENCING. I.GUIDELINES . "" ... ", ~- . {"J .0 "\! ~, o t~ , o \\ * " c JANUARY 1987 \l ." Q Published to comply with statutory requirements and to elicit analysis and comment THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION t331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NW SUITE 1400 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-8800 William W. Wilkins, Jr. Chairman Michael K. Block Stephen G. Breyer Helen G. Corrothers George E. MacKinnon Ilene H. Nagel Paul H. Roblnsof. Benjamin F. Baer (ex officio) Ronald L GaIner (ex officio) LETTER FROM TI-IE COMMISSION This revised draft of sentencing guidelines differs significantly in format and substance from the preliminary draft published by the Commission in September 1986. The revisions are due in part to suggestions from hundreds of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, victim advocates, and other individuals who analyzed and commented on the preliminary draft. In its deliberations and redrafting, the Commission has been sensItive to these concerns. The primary purpose of publishing a preliminary draft of guidelines in September was to provide a vehicle for extensive public comment. The Commission was under no statutory requirement to publish draft guidelines at that early date. The alternative, however, would have severely limited public comment, and the Commission found this unacceptable. The decision to publish a preliminary draft early proved to be correct. We learned a great deal and at the same time informed many people about guidelines and the positive effect they will have on our system of Justice. Guideline sentencing is an evolutionary process. We are developing a working framework for a system of guidelines that, over time, will be refined and amended as practical expenence, analysis, and logic dictate. The Commission realizes that it cannot produce a perfect system. However, what will be accomplished is significant improvement in our system of justice through a progressive, informed, and just set of sentencing guidelines. Once again we seek your critical analysis and comments. Thank you. U.S. Department of Justice Sincerely, National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced ~xactly ~s recei~e~ from the person or organization originating it. POints of view or opInions stat~d ;!{~~~~r in this document are those of the authors and do. not nec~ssan Y represent the official position or poliCies 01 the National Institute 01 WilliarYw. Wilkins, Jr. Justice. Chairman Permission to reproduce this QGP¥£lgRted material has been gran~ibIcpU Domain u.s sentencing commission to the National Criminal JusHce Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the ~ owner. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW___________ _ 1 Au thority_______________ . ___________ _ 1. 1 II. Administrative Procedure Act. ____________________ 1 Principles of Sentencing ______________________ III. 5 2 IV. HistoricalOverview__________ _ 3 V. Overview of the Guidelines____________________ _ 4 VI. Application Instructions,______________________ _ 5 VII. The Sentencing System_____________________ _ 6 VIII. Probation and Sentencing Options._________________ _ 8 IX. ResearchProgram________________________ _ 8 X. Sentencing Table,_______________________ _ 10 CHAPTER TWO: OFFENSECONDUCT___________________________ _ 11 Over~ew________________________________ __ 11 Sentencing Factors,____________________________ _ 11 Part A ~ Offenses Involving the Person._____ -i'!!i!i-..,eso......,.ffl""1i~=",._- .......+_----- 13 1. Homicide,______ -_____ N_~_'-_!...:;:J11::..{ ..=R"!::':.;:9"""'''''4.. __-+- ____ 13 2. Assault 16 3. Criminal.-----------------------r-------- Sexual Conduct._______ -!!I~~_'9Jr_;fm~----!'------ 19 4. Kidnapping, Abduction, or Unlawful Restr l... ,- _______-ii~'-- _____ 22 5. Air Piracy__________________ f-f ___ _ 23 ACQUl!S'iifi.oNSli f Part B - Offenses InvoMng Property . t 25 1. Theft, Embezzlement, Receipt of Stolen Property, and Property Desitruction.__ _ 25 2. Burglary and Trespass 29 3. Robbery, Extortion, and Blackmail~ __________________ 30 4. Commercial Bribery and Kickbacks, ___________________ 33 5. Counterfeiting and Forgery_____________________ _ 35 6. Motor Vehicle Identification Numbers_______________ _ 38 Part C - Offenses Invol~ngPublic Officials, _____________________ 39 Part D - Offenses Involving Drugs.-_____________________ 44 1. Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, Trafficking, or Possession; Continuing Criminal Enterprise__________________ _ 44 2. Unlawful Possession_______________________ _ 55 3. Regulatory Violations,___________________ --- 56 Part E - Offenses Involving Criminal Enterprises and Racketeerinog_________ _ 57 1. Racketeerinog________________________ _ 57 2. Extortionate E;.,:tensions of Credit 59 3. Gambling.. _________________________ 60 4. Trafficking in Contraband Cigarettes _________________ 61 5. Labor Racketeering_______________________ _ 61 Part F - Offenses Involving Fraud and Deception._________________ _ 66 Part G - Offenses Involving Prostitution, Sexual Exploitation of Minors, and Obscenity________________________ _ 70 1. Prostitution_________________________ _ 70 2. Sexual Exploitation of a Minor__________________ _ 71 3. Obsceruty___________________________ _ 72 Part H - Offenses Involving Individual Rights, __________________ 74 1. Civil Rights, _________________________ 74 2. Political Rights, _________________________ 75 3. Privacy and Eavesdroppinog___________________ _ 77 4. Peonage, Involuntary Servitude, and Slave Trade ______________ 79 Part I - [Not Used} Part J - Offenses Involving the Administration of J ustice. ______________ 80 Part K - Offenses Involving Public Order and Safety_______________ _ 83 1. Explosives and Arson, ______________________ 83 2. Frrearms_______________________________ __ 85 3. Transportation of Hazardous Materials,________________ _ 88 4. Riotinog ____________________________ 90 Part L - Offenses Involving Immigration, Naturalization, and Passports,________ _ 91 1. Immigration,_________________________ _ 91 2. Naturalization and Passports,_____________________ __ 92 Part M - Offenses Involving National Defense _____________________ 94 1. Treason and Related Offenses,___________________ _ 94 2. Sabotage._________________________ _ 95 3. Espionage and Related Offenses,_______ "-- ____________ 97 4. Conduct Impairing Military Effectiveness,_______________ _ 102 5. Prohibited Financial Transactions and Exports._______________ _ 104 6. Agent Registration,________________________ _ 107 7. Atomic Energy____________________________ _ 109 Part N - Offenses Involving Food, Drugs, Agricultural Products, and Consumer Products______________________ _ 112 1. Tampering______________________________ _ 112 2. Food, Drug, and Agricultural.____________________ _ 113 3. Other Consumer Product_______________________ _ 114 Part 0 - [Not Used] Part P - Offenses Involving Prisons and Correctional Facilities,____________ _ 116 Part Q - Offenses Involving the Environment____________________ _ 119 1. En~ronment _______________________________ 119 2. Conservation and Wildlife,______________________ _ 125 Part R - Antitrust Offenses, ___________________________ 129 Part S - Money Laundering and Monetary Transaction Reportino.g ___________ 131 Part T - Offenses Involving Taxation____________ . _______ _ 135 1. Income Taxes______________________ _ 135 2. Alcohol and Tobacco Taxes, ___________________ 137 3. Customs Taxes, _______________________ 137 4. Tax Table,'________________________ _ 138 Part U - [Reserved] Part V - [Reserved] Part W - [ReservedJ Part X - Other Offenses. ________________________ 144 1. Conspiracies, Attempts, Solicitations._______________ _ 144 2. Aiding and Abettine..g _____________________ 145 3. Accessory After the Fact, ____________________ 145 4. All Other Offenses, ______________________ 146 Part Y - General Provisions._______________________ _ 147 1. Departures._______________________ _ 148 2. Adjustments._______________________ _ 152 Part Z - Role in the Offense.______________________ _ 157 CHAPTER THREE: OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS, ____________ 159 Part A - Criminal History_______________________ _ 159 Part B - Special Offenders._______________________ _ 165 Part C - Post-Offense Conduct,_____________________ _ 166 1. Obstruction of Justice and Perjury________________ _ 166 2. Acceptance of Responsibility__________________ _ 167 3. Cooperation._______________________ _ 168 Part D - Other Offender Characteristics---------------------------- 170 CHAPTER FOUR: SENTENCING PROCEDURES, GUILTY PLEAS AND PLEA AGREEMENTS 1 T3 CHAPTER FIVE: DETERMINING THE SENTENCE.____________ _ 175 1. Probation,________________________________ , 175 2. Imprisonment'--___________________~ ________ 179 3. Supervised Release_, ______________________ 181 4. Restitution, Fines, Assessments, Forfeitures,____________ _ 182 5. Sentencing Options, _______________________ 188 6. Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences of Imprisonment,_________ _ 191 CHAPTER SIX: VIOLATIONS OF PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE,___ _ 194 APPENDIX A: AUTHORIZING LEG.ISLATION AND RELATED SENTENCING PROVISIONS APPENDIX B: RECORD OF COMMISSION VOTE AND DISSENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBINSON CHAPTER ONE • INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW I. Authority The United States Sentencing Commission ("Commission") is an independent agency in the judicial branch composed of seven voting and
Recommended publications
  • STACY LEA BAKER, ) Case No. 10-90127-BHL-7 ) Debtor

    STACY LEA BAKER, ) Case No. 10-90127-BHL-7 ) Debtor

    Case 10-59029 Doc 59 Filed 09/28/11 EOD 09/29/11 08:04:30 Pg 1 of 20 SO ORDERED: September 28, 2011. ______________________________ Basil H. Lorch III United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION In re: ) ) STACY LEA BAKER, ) Case No. 10-90127-BHL-7 ) Debtor. ) ) ) MURPHY OIL USA, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Adv. No. 09-59029 ) STACY LEA BAKER, ) ) Defendant. ) JUDGMENT This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Complaint to Determine Liability and Non-Dischargability of Debt Under 11 U.S.C. § 523, as supplemented by its More Definite Case 10-59029 Doc 59 Filed 09/28/11 EOD 09/29/11 08:04:30 Pg 2 of 20 Statement of the Claim [Docket # 41].1 The Court tried the matter on June 1, 2011. The Plaintiff and Defendants submitted post-trial briefs [Docket #s 71 and 72, respectively] on June 17, 2011. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (“Murphy”), the Plaintiff, seeks a determination that the Defendants, John M. Baker and Stacy Lea Baker, are liable to it under various state law theories. Further, Murphy seeks a judgment liquidating the Bakers’ alleged obligations to Murphy and finding that the debts are excepted from discharge in their respective Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). Having considered the foregoing, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds Mr. Baker to be liable to Murphy in the amount of $691,757.78, which judgment may not be discharged in Mr.
  • October 1988 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual

    October 1988 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual

    UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDEUNES MANUAL [Incorporating guideline amendments effective October 15, 1988] UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION 1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW SUITE 14OO WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-8800 William W. Wilklns, Jr. Chairman Michael K. Block Stephen G. Breyer Helen G. Corrothers George E. MacKinnon llene H. Nagel Benjamin F. Baer (ex officio) Ronald L. Gainer (ex officio) William W. Wilkins, Jr. Chairman Michael K. Block Stephen G. Breyer Helen G. Corrothers George E. MacKinnon llene H. Nagel Benjamin F. Baer (ex-officio) Ronald L. Gainer (ex-officio) Note: This document contains the text of the Guidelines Manual incorporating amendments effective January 15, 1988, June 15, 1988, and October 15, 1988. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Introduction and General Principles. Part A - Introduction 1.1 1. Authority 1.1 2. The Statutory Mission_ 1.1 3. The Basic Approach 1.2 4. The Guidelines' Resolution of Major Issues 1.5 5. A Concluding Note 1.12 Part B - General Application Principles 1.13 CHAPTER TWO: Offense Conduct 2.1 Part A - Offenses Against the Person 2.3 1. Homicide 2.3 2. Assault 2.4 3. Criminal Sexual Abuse 2.8 4. Kidnapping, Abduction, or Unlawful Restraint 2.11 5. Air Piracy 2.12 6. Threatening Communications 2.13 Part B - Offenses Involving Property 2.15 1. Theft, Embezzlement, Receipt of Stolen Property, and Property Destruction 2.15 2. Burglary and Trespass 2.19 3. Robbery, Extortion, and Blackmail 2.21 4. Commercial Bribery and Kickbacks 2.25 5. Counterfeiting, Forgery, and Infringement of Copyright or Trademark 2.27 6.
  • Self-Help in the Collection of Debts As a Defense to Criminal Prosecution

    Self-Help in the Collection of Debts As a Defense to Criminal Prosecution

    Washington University Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 1938 Self-Help in the Collection of Debts as a Defense to Criminal Prosecution Milton H. Aronson Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Milton H. Aronson, Self-Help in the Collection of Debts as a Defense to Criminal Prosecution, 24 WASH. U. L. Q. 117 (1938). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol24/iss1/11 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19381 NOTES SELF-HELP IN THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS AS A DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION Adverse economic conditions present the spectacle of petty creditors going to unusual lengths to collect. Some apply cajol- ery, trickery, threats, even force in attempting to secure pay- ments. But save in instances of self-defense, recaption and repri- sals, entry on lands, the abatement of nuisances, and distraint, the right to self-redress is not recognized,' because The public peace is a superior consideration to any one man's private property; and * * * , if individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for these reasons it is provided that this natural right * * * shall never be exercised where such exertion must occasion strife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of so- 2 ciety.
  • Infanticide in Early Modem Gennany: the Experience of Augsburg, Memmingen, Ulm, and Niirdlingen, 1500-1800

    Infanticide in Early Modem Gennany: the Experience of Augsburg, Memmingen, Ulm, and Niirdlingen, 1500-1800

    Infanticide in Early Modem Gennany: the experience of Augsburg, Memmingen, Ulm, and Niirdlingen, 1500-1800 Margaret Brannan Lewis Charlottesville, Virginia M.A., History, University of Virginia, 2008 B.A., History and Gennan, Furman University, 2006 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History University of Virginia May, 2012 i Abstract Between 1500 and 1800, over 100 women and men were arrested for infanticide or abortion in the city of Augsburg in southern Germany. At least 100 more were arrested for the same crime in the three smaller cities of Ulm, Memmingen, and Nördlingen. Faced with harsh punishments as well as social stigma if found pregnant out of wedlock, many women in early modern Europe often saw abortion or infanticide as their only option. At the same time, town councils in these southern German cities increasingly considered it their responsibility to stop this threat to the godly community and to prosecute cases of infanticide or abortion and to punish (with death) those responsible. The story of young, unmarried serving maids committing infanticide to hide their shame is well-known, but does not fully encompass the entirety of how infanticide was perceived in the early modern world. This work argues that these cases must be understood in a larger cultural context in which violence toward children was a prevalent anxiety, apparent in popular printed literature and educated legal, medical, and religious discourse alike. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this anxiety was expressed in and reinforced by woodcuts featuring mass murders of families, deformed babies, and cannibalism of infants by witches and other dark creatures.
  • Proof of Guilt Presumption

    Proof of Guilt Presumption

    PROOF OF GUILT PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE ­ Requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal D and relieves D ​ of burden to prove their innocence ● Why do we have it? ○ Cost­benefit determination ­ some errors were worse / more costly than others ○ Reduces the risk of error ○ Commands the respect of citizens ● Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt ○ Proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in most important of your own affairs ○ Differing instructions: ■ The “Moral Certainty” Instruction ­ If the juror cannot say to a moral certainty that ​ they feel an abiding conviction, after all evidence is compared, considered ■ The “Firmly Convinced” Instruction ­ If juror believes there is not a real possibility of ​ the D being not guilty ■ The No Waiver or Vacillation Instruction ­ If juror’s feeling is one that is not stable ​ but wavers or vacillates then there is reasonable doubt ■ The “No Real Doubt” Instruction ­ Not to mathematical certainty but reasonable/real ​ doubt exists about non guilt ■ The “Thoroughly Convinced” Instruction ­ No explanation of grounds but rather in ​ their truth of conscience being thoroughly convinced of their impression of the evidence PRINCIPLES OF PUNISHMENT Theories: ​ ● RETRIBUTIVIST ○ Goal: to make the D suffer in order to pay for their crime ​ ■ Punishment is justified because people deserve it (eye for an eye) ■ Personal blameworthiness, social harm caused ■ Looks backward to punish for the crime ○ Two categories: ■ Negative Retributivism
  • SENATE BILL No. 254 _____

    SENATE BILL No. 254 _____

    Introduced Version SENATE BILL No. 254 _____ DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL Citations Affected: IC 35-31.5-2; IC 35-32-2-1; IC 35-43-4-2. Synopsis: Organized retail theft. Makes theft a Level 6 felony if a person: (1) knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property and the person uses the Internet to sell, deliver, or distribute the property; or (2) knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over retail property having a value of less than $750 and certain other conditions apply. Makes theft a Level 5 felony if: (1) the value of the retail property is at least $750 and less than $2,500 and certain other conditions apply; (2) the retail property is a firearm; (3) the retail property is exchanged for cash, a gift card, a merchandise card, or other item of value; or (4) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for theft or criminal conversion. Makes theft a Level 4 felony if the value of the retail property is at least $2,500 and certain other conditions apply. Provides that, in determining the value of the property, acts of theft committed in a single episode of criminal conduct may be charged in a single count. Provides that theft of retail property that occurs in more than one county over a six month period may be tried in any county where the theft occurred. Effective: July 1, 2019. Ruckelshaus January 3, 2019, read first time and referred to Committee on Corrections and Criminal Law. 2019 IN 254—LS 6622/DI 123 Introduced First Regular Session of the 121st General Assembly (2019) PRINTING CODE.
  • The Legal Career of Harry Claiborne

    The Legal Career of Harry Claiborne

    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-2008 Country lawyer in a maverick boom town: The legal career of Harry Claiborne J. Bruce Alverson University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Alverson, J. Bruce, "Country lawyer in a maverick boom town: The legal career of Harry Claiborne" (2008). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 2807. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/iflf-kxkg This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COUNTRY LAWYER IN A MAVERICK BOOM TOWN: THE LEGAL CAREER OF HARRY CLAIBORNE by J. Bruce Alverson Bachelor of Science University of Nevada 1964 Juris Doctorate University of San Francisco 1970 Master of Arts University of Nevada, Las Vegas 1995 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in History Department of History College of Liberal Arts Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas August 2008 UMI Number: 3338177 Copyright 2009 by Alverson, J.
  • The General Articles, Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

    The General Articles, Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

    St. John's Law Review Volume 35 Number 2 Volume 35, May 1961, Number 2 Article 5 The General Articles, Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Gilbert G. Ackroyd Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE GENERAL ARTICLES, ARTICLES 133 AND 134 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE LT. COL. GCILBIRT G. ACKROYD t INTRODUCTION W E begin this discussion by taking certain liberties with ' the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for that Code mentions only one "General Article," Article 134, and we are going to use that description in referring to Article 133, "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman," as well. However, considering the history and indeed the very nature of these two articles, the reader will readily understand that the term "general" is here being used merely in a sense opposite to the term "specific," that is, in regard to the rather generic ideas of criminality or misconduct, which in some instances consist only of a failure to comply with certain necessary mil- itary standards, expressed in both of these articles. It also will be found that some of the particular acts or omissions which run afoul of these two articles do not always have con- venient criminal connotations of the type immediately recogniz- able by one trained in the common law, but perhaps somewhat unfamiliar with military life, customs, and historical devel- opment.
  • Criminality and the Common Law Imagination (1700-1900)

    Criminality and the Common Law Imagination (1700-1900)

    Criminality and the Common Law Imagination (1700-1900) by Erin Leigh Sheley A.B. in English, June 2002, Harvard University J.D., June 2006, Harvard University A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 17, 2015 Dissertation directed by Tara Ghoshal Wallace Professor of English The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Erin Leigh Sheley has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of March 27, 2015. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Criminality and the Common Law Imagination (1700-1900) Erin Leigh Sheley Dissertation Research Committee: Tara Ghoshal Wallace, Professor of English, Dissertation Director Daniel DeWispelare, Assistant Professor of English, Committee Member Maria Frawley, Professor of English, Committee Member ii Dedication The author wishes to dedicate this dissertation to her parents, Janet and G. Michael Sheley. iii Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Maria Frawley, Daniel DeWispelare, Kathryn Temple, Judith Plotz, Robert McRuer, David Mitchell, Constance Kibler and Jonathan Gil Harris for their support and guidance throughout the process of writing this dissertation. Above all she wishes to thank Tara Ghoshal Wallace for many years of mentorship, inspiration, encouragement, and friendship. iv Abstract of Dissertation Criminality and the Common Law Imagination (1700-1900) This dissertation explores the relationship between the legal account of criminality and the cultural narratives sustaining it during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It considers how the singular importance of precedent to Anglo-American law resulted in an imagery of historical legitimacy that came to shape the cultural construction of criminality.
  • The Baghdad Penal Code

    The Baghdad Penal Code

    PRICE Rs. 2. (> ^ ©> cy ^ THE BAGHDAD PENAL CODE J I, Lieutenant-General William Rame Marshall, Knight Com­ mander of the Bath, Knight Commander of the Star of India, by virtue of the authority vested in me as General Officer Commanding- m-Chief His Britannic Majesty's Forces in Mesopotamia, do hereby proclaim and order as follows :— 1. The Law entitled " The Baghdad Penal Code *' is hereby promulgated and shall be brought into force on the 1st day of January, 1919. Copies of the said Law shall be open to inspec­ tion and shall be on sale at the offices of all Political Officers and Assistant Political Officers in the Baghdad Wilayet. 2. Offences committed against members or followers of the British Forces or any authority established by order of the British authorities may be punished either under the provisions of " The Baghdad Penal Code " or under the provisions of " The Indian Penal Code ". 3. The Code shall take effect and be applied subject to the exigencies of the Military Occupation of the Territories to which it .applies, and to the laws and customs of war. Made at Baghdad this 21st day of November, 1918. W. R. MARSHALL, LIEUT.-GENERAI., Commanding-in-Chief, Mes. E%. Force. MEMORANDUM EXPLANATORY OF THE BAGHDAD PENAL CODE. " The Baghdad Penal Code " has been prepared as a temporary and provisional law for use in the Courts which have been established by the British Military Authorities in the Baghdad^ Wilayet. In accordance with the policy that so far as possible the local laws in existence at the date of the Occupation should be continued, the Baghdad Penal Code is based on the Ottoman Penal Code which at the date of the Occupation was in force in the Baghdad Wilayet as elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.
  • Unjustified: the Practical Irrelevance of the Justification/Excuse Distinction

    Unjustified: the Practical Irrelevance of the Justification/Excuse Distinction

    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 43 2009 Unjustified: The Practical Irrelevance of the Justification/Excuse Distinction Gabriel J. Chin University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Gabriel J. Chin, Unjustified: The Practical Irrelevance of the Justification/Excuse Distinction, 43 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 79 (2009). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol43/iss1/5 This Essay in Response is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNJUSTIFIED: THE PRACTICAL IRRELEVANCE OF THE JUSTIFICATION/EXCUSE DISTINCTIONt GabrielJ. Chin* INTRODUCTION In recent decades, the distinction between justification and ex- cuse defenses has been a favorite topic of theorists of philosophy and criminal law. Paul Robinson offers this representative general definition: Justified conduct adheres to the criminal law's rules of con- duct and is to be encouraged (or at least tolerated) in similar circumstances in the future.... An excuse, in contrast, repre- sents a legal conclusion that the conduct is wrong and undesirable, that the conduct ought not to be tolerated and ought to be avoided in the future, even in the same situation. Criminal liability nonetheless is inappropriate because some characteristic of the actor or the actor's situation vitiates the actor's blameworthiness.
  • IC 35-43-4 Chapter 4. Theft, Conversion, and Receiving Stolen Property IC 35-43-4-0.1 Application of Certain Amendments to Chapt

    IC 35-43-4 Chapter 4. Theft, Conversion, and Receiving Stolen Property IC 35-43-4-0.1 Application of Certain Amendments to Chapt

    IC 35-43-4 Chapter 4. Theft, Conversion, and Receiving Stolen Property IC 35-43-4-0.1 Application of certain amendments to chapter Sec. 0.1. The amendments made to section 4 of this chapter by P.L.84-2001 are intended to specify that the scope of the amended terms includes retail sales receipts, universal product codes (UPC), and other product identification codes. The amendment of these definitions shall not be construed to mean that these terms did not cover retail sales receipts, universal product codes (UPC), and other product identification codes before July 1, 2001. As added by P.L.220-2011, SEC.598. Amended by P.L.63-2012, SEC.52. IC 35-43-4-1 Definitions Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "exert control over property" means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property. (b) Under this chapter, a person's control over property of another person is "unauthorized" if it is exerted: (1) without the other person's consent; (2) in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented; (3) by transferring or encumbering other property while failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of that other property; (4) by creating or confirming a false impression in the other person; (5) by failing to correct a false impression that the person knows is influencing the other person, if the person stands in a relationship of special trust to the other person; (6) by promising performance that the person knows will not be performed; (7) by expressing an intention to damage the property or impair the rights of any other person; or (8) by transferring or reproducing: (A) recorded sounds; or (B) a live performance; without consent of the owner of the master recording or the live performance, with intent to distribute the reproductions for a profit.