DOCSLIB.ORG

Parental Kidnapping 13002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parental Kidnapping 13002 Revised May, 2021 - Version 1.5.0 MICR Arrest Charge Codes Page 1 of 6 01000 - Sovereignty 10002 - Parental Kidnapping 13002 - Aggravated Assault Treason 0101 Parental Kidnapping 1072 Aim Beam of Light at Plane/Train 1386 Treason Misprision 0102 11001 - Sexual Penetration Mayhem 1393 Espionage 0103 Penis/Vagina, 1st Degree 1171 Assault, Intent to Commit Felony 1394 Sabotage 0104 11002 - Sexual Penetration Assault, Intent to Maim 1395 Sedition 0105 Penis/Vagina, 3rd Degree 1172 Assault Less than Murder 1396 Selective Service 0106 11003 - Sexual Penetration Assault with Intent to Murder 1397 Sovereignty (other) 0199 Oral/Anal, 1st Degree 1173 Assault (other) 1399 02000 - Military 11004 - Sexual Penetration Fleeing Resulting in Assault 8176 Desertion 0201 Oral/Anal, 3rd Degree 1174 13003 - Intimidation/Stalking Away Without Leave 0297 11005- Sexual Penetration Intimidation Military (other) 0299 Object, 1st Degree 1175 (includes 911 interference) 1316 03000 - Immigration 11006 - Sexual Penetration Cyberbullying 1372 Illegal Entry 0301 Object, 3rd Degree 1176 Cyberbullying, 2nd Offense 1373 False Citizenship 0302 11007 - Sexual Contact Forcible Intentional Threat To Commit Act of Smuggling Aliens 0303 Forcible Contact, 2nd Degree 1177 Violence Against School, Immigration (other) 0399 Sex Offense against Child, Fondle 3601 School Employee or Students 1376 09001 - Murder/Non-Negligent 11008 - Sexual Contact Forcible Intentional Threat To Commit Act of Family, Gun 0901 Forcible Contact, 4th Degree 1178 Violence Against School, Family, Other Weapon 0902 12000 - Robbery School Employee or Students Non-Family, Gun 0903 Business, Gun 1201 with Specific Intent to Carry Out Non-Family, Other Weapon 0904 Business, Other Weapon 1202 or Overt Act Toward 1377 Public Official, Gun 0905 Business, Strong Arm 1203 Telephone Used to Harassment, Public Official, Other Weapon 0906 Street, Gun 1204 Threats 1380 Police Officer, Gun 0907 Street, Other Weapon 1205 Aggravated Stalking (felony) 1381 Police Officer, Other Weapon 0908 Street, Strong Arm 1206 Stalking (misdemeanor) 1382 Willful Killing, Gun 0911 Residence, Gun 1207 Stalking a Minor (felony) 1383 Willful Killing, Other Weapon 0912 Residence, Other Weapon 1208 Computer/Internet Used for Human Trafficking Causing Death 0913 Residence, Strong Arm 1209 Harassment, Threats 1384 Homicide (other) 0999 Forcible, Purse Snatching 1210 Other Electronic Medium Used 09002 - Negligent Homicide Banking Type Institution 1211 for Harassment, Threats 1385 Negligent Homicide, Weapon 0910 Attempted Robbery, Unarmed 1297 Threat to Bomb 5215 Deliver Controlled Substance Attempted Robbery, Armed 1298 Threat to Burn 5216 Causing Death 0996 Robbery (other) 1299 13004 - Non-Fatal Shooting Assisted Suicide 0997 12001 - Carjacking Non-Fatal Shooting 1378 Felony Death by Drunk Driving Carjacking 1270 14000 - Abortion Snowmobile 5466 13001 - Non-Aggravated Assault Abortion Act on Other 1401 Felony Death by Drunk Driving ORV 5476 Simple Assault 1313 Abortion Act on Self 1402 Felony Death by Drunk Driving Boat 5486 13002 - Aggravated Assault Submission to Abortion Act 1403 Felony Death by Drunk Driving MV 8046 Family, Gun 1301 Abortifacient; Sell, Manufacture, etc. 1404 Let Intoxicated Person Operate Family, Other Weapon 1302 Abortion (other) 1499 MV Causing Death, Alcohol 8034 Family, Strong Arm 1303 20000 - Arson Let Intoxicated Person Operate Non-Family, Gun 1304 Business, Endangered Life 2001 MV Causing Death, Drugs 8035 Non-Family, Other Weapon 1305 Residence, Endangered Life 2002 Felony Death UI Controlled Sub. 8039 Non-Family, Strong Arm 1306 Business, Defraud Insurer 2003 Felony Death from Fleeing Vehicle 8175 Public Official, Gun 1307 Residence, Defraud Insurer 2004 09003 - Negligent Homicide Vehicle/ Public Official, Other Weapon 1308 Arson, Business 2005 Boat/Snowmobile/Off Road Vehicle Public Official, Strong Arm 1309 Arson, Residence 2006 Let Suspended Person Operate Police Officer, Gun 1310 Setting Fire to Woods and Prairies 2007 MV Causing Death 8268 Police Officer, Other Weapon 1311 Public Building Endangered Life Negligent Homicide, Vehicle 0909 Police Officer, Strong Arm 1312 (includes hotel and motel) 2008 Negligent Homicide, Other 0998 HIV-Knowingly Engaging In Sex with Arson, Public Building 2009 N/A for 09004 - 09006 Intent to Infect Uninformed Partner 1317 Burning of Real Property 2072 10001 - Kidnapping/Abduction HIV-Knowingly Engaging In Sex with Burning of Personal Property 2073 Kidnap Minor for Ransom 1001 Uninformed Partner, Reckless Burning of Insured Property (own) 2097 Kidnap Adult for Ransom 1002 Disregard, Transmitting HIV 1318 Preparation to Burn 2098 Kidnap Minor to Sexually Assault 1003 HIV-Knowingly Engaging In Sex with Arson (other) 2099 Kidnap Adult to Sexually Assault 1004 Uninformed Partner, Reckless 21000 - Extortion Kidnap Minor 1005 Disregard, Not Transmitting HIV 1319 Threat to Injure Person 2101 Kidnap Adult 1006 Murder Attempt 1371 Threat to Damage Property 2102 Kidnap Hostage for Escape 1007 Cyberbullying, Continuous Pattern, Threat to Injure Reputation 2103 Abduct, no Ransom or Assault 1008 Causing Serious Injury 1374 Threat to Accuse Person of Crime 2104 Kidnap, Hijack Aircraft 1009 Cyberbullying, Continuous Pattern, Threat of Informing of Violation 2105 Kidnapping (other) 1099 Causing Death 1375 Extortion (other) 2199 Revised May, 2021 - Version 1.5.0 MICR Arrest Charge Codes Page 2 of 6 22001 - Burglary, Forced Entry 24002 - Motor Vehicle as Stolen 26007 - Fraud, Identity Theft Burglary, Safe/Vault 2201 Property (cont.) Identity Theft 2609 Forced Entry, Residence 2202 Theft and Use 2474 Personal Identify Information Forced Entry, Non-Residence 2203 Unauthorized Use (includes joy riding) 2475 Obtain/Possess/Transfer with Banking Type Institution 2207 MV as Stolen Property (other) 2498 Intent to Commit Identify Theft 2610 Unoccupied Building or Structure 2275 24003 - Motor Vehicle Fraud 26008 - Fraud, Computer Hacking/ Burglary, Other Forced Entry 2299 Obtain Money/Goods, False Invasion 22002 - Burglary, Non-Forced Entry Pretenses 2470 Computer Hacking 2696 No Forced Entry, Residence 2204 Concealing Identity of Motor Vehicle 2471 Computer Invasion 2697 No Forced Entry, Non-Residence 2205 Acquire Motor Vehicle During 27000 - Embezzlement 22003 - Burglary Unlawful Entry Denial of Driver's License 2496 Business Property 2701 (No Intent) Motor Vehicle Fraud (other) 2497 Interstate Shipment 2702 Entering without Permission 2298 25000 - Forgery/Counterfeiting Banking Type Institution 2703 22004 - Possession of Burglary Tools Forgery of Checks 2501 Public Property Possession of Burglary Tools 2206 Forgery of Other Object 2502 (federal, state, or city property) 2704 23001 - Larceny, Pocketpicking Counterfeiting of Any Object 2503 Postal 2705 Pocketpicking 2301 Pass Forged, Any Object 2504 Misappropriate Funds 2798 23002 - Larceny, Purse Snatching Pass Counterfeited, Any Object 2505 Embezzlement (other) 2799 Purse Snatching, No Force 2302 Possess Forged, Any Object 2506 28000 - Recovery of Stolen Property 23003 - Larceny, Theft From Building Possess Counterfeit, Any Object 2507 Sale of Stolen Property 2801 From Building (includes library/public) 2308 Possess Tools, Plates, etc., for Interstate Transportation of 2802 From Banking Type Institution 2311 Forgery or Counterfeiting 2508 Receiving 2803 23004 - Larceny, Theft From Coin Transport Forged, Any Object 2509 Possessing 2804 Operated Machine/Device Transport Counterfeit, any Object 2510 Concealing 2805 From Coin Machines 2307 Transport Tools, Plates, etc., for Stolen Property (other) 2899 23005 - Larceny, Theft From Motor Forgery or Counterfeiting 2511 29000 - Damage to Property Vehicle Alcohol: Forge, Alter or Counterfeit Business Property 2901 Personal Property from Vehicle 2305 Documents, Labels or Stamps 2512 Private Property 2902 23006 - Larceny, Theft of Motor Alcohol: Utter and Publish False, Public Property 2903 Vehicle Parts/Accessories Forged, Altered or Counterfeit Business Property with Explosives 2904 Theft, Parts/Accessories from MV 2304 Document, Label or Stamp 2513 Private Property with Explosives 2905 Strip Stolen Vehicle 2407 Alcohol: Use of Label or Stamp Public Property with Explosives 2906 23007 - Larceny, Other More than Once 2514 Destruction, Tombs/Memorials 2995 From Shipment 2306 Forgery (other) 2589 Throwing Stones, etc. at From Yards (grounds around building) 2309 Counterfeiting (other) 2599 Train or Motor Vehicle 2996 From Mails 2310 26001 - Fraud, False Pretenses, Computer Used in Commission From Interstate Shipment 2312 Swindle, Confidence Game of Crime 2997 Obstruct Correspondence Confidence Game, Fortune Telling 2601 Destroy, Injure Property of Police (postal violation) 2313 Swindle 2602 or Fire Departments 2998 Theft of U.S. Government Property 2314 Mail Fraud 2603 Damage to Property (other) 2999 Larceny, U.S. Government Reserve 2315 False Statements 2607 30001 - Retail Fraud, Misrepresentation Mail & Mail Depository Protection Fraud (Larceny) by Conversion 2674 Retail Fraud Misrepresentation, 1st 3071 Act, Mail Theft 2316 Fraudulently Obtaining of Goods Retail Fraud Misrepresentation, 2nd 3072 Mail & Mail Depository Protection Offered for Sale 2675 Retail Fraud Misrepresentation, 3rd 3077 Act, Mail Theft, 2nd Offense 2317 Defrauding Hotels, Restaurants, 30002 - Retail Fraud, Theft Larceny of Gasoline, Self Service 2379 Innkeepers, etc. 2677 Retail Fraud, 1st Degree 3073 Larceny (other) 2399 Fraudulently Obtaining Gasoline Retail Fraud, 2nd Degree 3074 Aircraft Theft (includes taking & using)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 2:16-Cv-00145-CG-N Document 16 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 36
    Case 2:16-cv-00145-CG-N Document 16 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION GREEN GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company and HOWLING COYOTE, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Plaintiffs, No. 2:16-cv-00145-CG-N vs. JUDGE CALLIE V. S. GRANADE MARY B. SCHAEFFER, ELLIS B. LONG, BENJAMIN EATON, and ESTHER CALHOUN, as individuals and as MAGISTRATE members and officers of BLACK BELT CITIZENS JUDGE FIGHTING FOR HEALTH AND JUSTICE, an KATHERINE P. unincorporated association, NELSON Defendants. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(6) Case 2:16-cv-00145-CG-N Document 16 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 36 Table of Contents Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Statement of Facts ............................................................................................................................4 Legal Argument ...............................................................................................................................7 I. Requirements for pleading a defamation claim .............................................................7 II. The vast majority of the statements upon which the libel claims are based are not alleged to have
    [Show full text]
  • Making Sociology Relevant to Society
    Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture The Social Construction of Copycat Crime July, 2021, Vol. 21 (Issue 1): pp. 104 – 127 Surette, Helfgott, Parkin, & O’Toole Copyright © 2021 Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture All rights reserved. ISSN: 1070-8286 The Social Construction of Copycat Crime in Open Access Media Ray Surette University of Central Florida & Jacqueline B. Helfgott Seattle University & William Parkin Seattle University & Mary Ellen O’Toole George Mason University 104 Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture The Social Construction of Copycat Crime July, 2021, Vol. 21 (Issue 1): pp. 104 – 127 Surette, Helfgott, Parkin, & O’Toole Abstract Examination of copycat crimes presented in digital mass media has important implications for understanding the nature of the contagion effect and its impact on potential copycat perpetrators in addition to understanding the impact of media-mediated crime on the public at large. While the crime content found in traditional legacy media has been extensively studied, open-access digital media crime content has not been well examined. Irrespective of a growing interest in copycat crime, there has been limited empirical research on the phenomena and none on open access portrayals of it. Addressing this research gap, the results from a one-day dedicated exploration of open-access data concerning copycat crime was conducted at Seattle University in 2018. Twenty students in twelve teams of 1 to 3 students collected open access data on copycat crime. The compiled open access copycat crime portrait was examined regarding crime types, perpetrator and victim characteristics, sources of copycat crime generators, and factors forwarded as causes of copycat crime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of the Law of Seditious Libel and the Control of the Press
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1985 The Development of the Law of Seditious Libel and the Control of the Press Philip A. Hamburger Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Philip A. Hamburger, The Development of the Law of Seditious Libel and the Control of the Press, 37 STAN. L. REV. 661 (1985). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/656 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Development of the Law of Seditious Libel and the Control of the Press Philip Hamburger* CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ 662 I. THE OPTIONS ........................................ 666 A. Treason .......................................... 666 B. Scandalum Magnatum ............................. 668 C. H eresy ........................................... 669 D . Libel ............................................ 669 E. Felony Statutes .................................... 670 F. Licensing ......................................... 671 II. PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE LICENSING LAWS .......... 674 A. Licensing Under Royal Prerogative .................
    [Show full text]
  • Treason and Related Offenses in the Anglo
    TREASON AND RELATED OFFENSES IN THE ANGLO-SAXON DOOMS" T HAS long been the accepted practice to begin the I broader outline of British history with the Anglo-Saxon period, both in the textbooks and general histories. Although the treatment is frequently all too brief, this difficult epoch is dealt with competently in most of its major aspects de- spite the relative paucity of the sources. Monographs on the Anglo-Saxon era are fewer than one might suspect, though some of the more recent are notably good, and a few of the older have become almost classic even when modified by subsequent research. Still the primary emphasis has been social, economic, or literary. There are significant studies on parliamentary origins, the beginning of feudalism, the village community, the class structure, and the transmission of the classical and Christian heritages.l But in legal history the field is narrowed down markedly save for a few most dis- tinguished contributions, despite the existence of a very con- siderable body of documentary sources of unusual richness and variety contained in the Anglo-Saxon Dooms.* The Anglo-Saxon Dooms represent a unique development in Geimanic legal history and are unlike the continental folklaws in many important respects, They are composed in the native tongue, Anglo-Saxon, for the most part, instead of in Vulgar Latin. They contain relatively few traces of the direct influence of Roman Law, although Roman ideas have been conveyed indirectly through ecclesiastical channels. * I wish to express my thanks and appreciation for the generous assistance of my friend and colleague, Professor Alan D.
    [Show full text]
  • Homicide Survey: Glossary of Terms
    Homicide Survey Glossary of terms Accused An accused person is someone against whom enough information exists to lay a charge in connection with a homicide incident. Gang-related homicide Gang-related homicides are those reported by police to occur as a consequence of activities involving an organized crime group or street gang. Homicide A homicide occurs when a person directly or indirectly, by any means, causes the death of a human being. Homicide is either culpable (murder, manslaughter or infanticide) or non-culpable (not an offence and, therefore, not included in the Homicide Survey). Deaths caused by criminal negligence, suicide and accidental or justifiable homicide (e.g. self-defence) are not included. Homicide count The homicide count reflects the number of homicide victims that become known to police and subsequently reported to the Homicide Survey in a given year. Since some homicides become known to police long after they occur, there are generally a few homicides included in a given year’s total that occurred in previous years. Homicide rate This technique standardizes data to permit comparisons over time and for different population sizes. The homicide rate is based on the number of victims per 100,000 population. Incident An incident is defined as the occurrence of one (or more) criminal offence(s) during one single, distinct event, regardless of the number of victims. If there are multiple victims or multiple accused persons, the offences must occur at the same location and at the same time if they are to be included within the same incident. The incident count will normally be lower than the victim count due to incidents involving multiple victims.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Concept of Treason: English, American
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 35 Issue 1 Article 4 Fall 1959 Historical Concept of Treason: English, American Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation (1959) "Historical Concept of Treason: English, American," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 35 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol35/iss1/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES HISTORICAL CONCEPT OF TREASON: ENGLISH, AMERICAN Treason is essentially a violation of allegiance to the community. There have been times in the history of various legal systems when the definition of "treasonous acts" was so broad that it encompassed the whole of criminal law. In early Roman history the concept of treason was sufficiently broad to include, along with betrayal to an external enemy, any act which threatened the safety of the group.' Perduellio, the earli- est Roman concept of treason, was literally the act of a base or evil enemy who assumed a state of war toward his community.2 Perduellio, mean- ing "enemy," was committed by a Roman when he acted in any manner hostile to his country. This was especially true if he actually adhered to an external enemy.' The Romans did not attain even a moderate degree of precision in defining treason, and a lack of records of proceedings makes any analysis of the law extremely difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: an Overview
    Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law November 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL31253 Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview Summary A statute of limitations dictates the time period within which a legal proceeding must begin. The purpose of a statute of limitations in a criminal case is to ensure the prompt prosecution of criminal charges and thereby spare the accused of the burden of having to defend against stale charges after memories may have faded or evidence is lost. There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes punishable by death, nor for certain federal crimes of terrorism, nor for certain federal sex offenses. Prosecution for most other federal crimes must begin within five years of the commitment of the offense. There are exceptions. Some types of crimes are subject to a longer period of limitation; some circumstances suspend or extend the otherwise applicable period of limitation. Arson, art theft, certain crimes against financial institutions, and various immigration offenses all carry statutes of limitation longer than the five-year standard. Regardless of the applicable statute of limitations, the period may be extended or the running of the period suspended or tolled under a number of circumstances, such as when the accused is a fugitive or when the case involves charges of child abuse, bankruptcy, wartime fraud against the government, or DNA evidence. Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the crime has been completed. Although the federal crime of conspiracy is complete when one of the plotters commits an affirmative act in its name, the period for conspiracies begins with the last affirmative act committed in furtherance of the scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE 9.26 Capital Punishment
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE/CORRECTIONS TABLE 9.26 Capital Punishment State or other Prisoners under Capital punishment jurisdiction Capital offenses by state sentence of death abolished Method of execution Alabama Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (Ala. Stat. Ann. 13A-5-40(a)(1)-(18)). 182 Electrocution or lethal injection Alaska … … 1957 … First-degree murder, including pre-meditated murder and felony murder, Arizona 121 Lethal gas or lethal injection (a) accompanied by at least 1 of 14 aggravating factors (A.R.S. § 13-703(F)). Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10 Lethal injection or Arkansas 32 aggravating circumstances; treason. electrocution (b) First-degree murder with special circumstances; sabotage; train wrecking causing California death; treason; perjury causing execution of an innocent person; fatal assault by a 740 Lethal injection prisoner serving a life sentence. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors; first-degree Colorado 3 Lethal injection kidnapping resulting in death; treason. Connecticut … (c) 0 2012 … Delaware … (d) (d) 2016 … Florida (e) First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery. 354 Electrocution or lethal injection Murder with aggravating circumstances; kidnapping with bodily injury or ransom Georgia 56 Lethal injection when the victim dies; aircraft hijacking; treason. Hawaii … … 1957 … First-degree murder with aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping; perjury Idaho 9 Lethal injection resulting in death. Illinois … (f) 0 2011 … Indiana Murder with 17 aggravating circumstances (IC 35-50-2-9). 11 Lethal injection or electrocution Iowa … … 1965 … Capital murder with 8 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439, KSA 21-4625, Kansas 10 Lethal injection KSA 21-4636).
    [Show full text]
  • Conspiracy in Civil Law Countries Wienczyslaw J
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 42 Article 4 Issue 2 July-August Summer 1951 Conspiracy in Civil Law Countries Wienczyslaw J. Wagner 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 Wienczyslaw J. Wagner, Conspiracy in Civil Law Countries, 42 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 171 (1951-1952) 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. CONSPIRACY IN CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES Wienczyslaw J. Wagner The author received his education at the University of Warsaw (L.L.M., 1939), University of Paris (L.L.D., 1947), Northwestern University (L.L.M., 1950) and Academy of International Law, The Hague (1939, 1947). He was junior judge in Warsaw, 1941-1944; visiting professor at Fordham University, 1948-1949; and at present is teaching Comparative Law at Northwestern University School of Law while working for his S.J.D. degree. The present observations are the first ever published in American legal periodi- cals about conspiracy as understood in the civil law system.-EDI0ro It was revealed, at the Nuremberg Trial, that the approach to the problem of conspiracy in common law and in civil law countries is different. Mr. Justice Jackson, who was the United States counsel at Nuremberg, stated in his concurring opinion in Krulewitch v.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybercrime Laws of the United States October 2006
    Cybercrime Laws of the United States October 2006 CYBERCRIME LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES Compiled October 2006 by Al Rees, CCIPS Table of Contents Substantive cybercrime laws (e.g., laws prohibiting online identity theft, hacking, intrusion into computer systems, child pornography, intellectual property, online gambling): 18 U.S.C. § 1028 – Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information 18 U.S.C. § 1028A – Aggravated identity theft 18 U.S.C. § 1029 – Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices 18 U.S.C. § 1030 – Fraud and related activity in connection with computers 18 U.S.C. § 1037 – Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio, or television 18 U.S.C. § 1362 – [Malicious mischief related to] Communications lines, stations, or systems 18 U.S.C. § 1462 – Importation or transportation of obscene matters 18 U.S.C. § 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 18 U.S.C. § 1466A – Obscene visual representation of the sexual abuse of children 18 U.S.C. § 2251 – Sexual exploitation of children 18 U.S.C. § 2252 – Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors 18 U.S.C. § 2252A – Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography 18 U.S.C. § 2252B – Misleading domain names on the Internet [to deceive minors] 18 U.S.C. § 2252C – Misleading words or digital images on the Internet 18 U.S.C. § 2425 – Use of interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Wrong Or Merely Prohibited?
    1 Running Head: WRONG OR MERELY PROHIBITED? Wrong or Merely Prohibited: Special Treatment of Strict Liability in Intuitive Moral Judgment Carly Giffin & Tania Lombrozo Department of Psychology University of California, Berkeley Please note that this paper is currently in revision. Do not cite or circulate without permission. 2 WRONG OR MERELY PROHIBITED? Abstract Most crimes in America require that the defendant have “mens rea,” Latin for “guilty mind.” However, mens rea is not legally required for strict liability crimes, such as speeding or statutory rape, for which someone is guilty even if ignorant or deceived about her speed or the age of a sexual partner. In Experiment 1 (N = 384), we show that laypeople’s intuitive moral judgments reflect this legal distinction: ignorance and deception are less mitigating for strict liability crimes than for “mens rea” crimes. In Experiments 2 and 3 (N = 800), we find evidence that strict liability crimes may be treated more like violations of convention than like pure moral violations. First, we find that for strict liability crimes, ratings for moral censure and punishment are influenced to a greater extent by the fact that a rule was violated, even when harm is kept constant, mirroring the legal distinction of malum prohibitum (wrong as prohibited) versus malum in se (wrong in itself). Second, we find that rules prohibiting strict liability crimes are judged more arbitrary than corresponding rules for “mens rea” crimes, and that this judgment is related to the role of mental states. Jointly, the findings suggest a surprising correspondence between the law and laypeople’s intuitive judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Abolition of the Death Penalty and Its Alternative Sanction in South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia
    The abolition of the death penalty and its alternative sanction in South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia www.penalreform.org The abolition of the death penalty and its alternative sanction in South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia 1 Contents Acknowledgments 2 Acronyms 3 Introduction 4 Research methodology 5 Executive summary 6 Country-by-country analysis Republic of Armenia 8 Republic of Azerbaijan 21 Republic of Georgia 36 Comparison of the application and implementation of the death penalty and its alternative sanction in the South Caucasus region 48 Annex I: Recommendations of the national conference: life imprisonment in Armenia (20 May 2011) 55 Annex II: Recommendations of the national conference: life imprisonment in Azerbaijan (5 July 2011) 56 Annex III: Recommendations of the national conference: life imprisonment in Georgia (17 June 2011) 57 Annex IV: Recommendations of the South Caucasus regional conference on life imprisonment (15 July 2011) 58 2 Penal Reform International Acknowledgements This research paper has been created by Penal Reform International. It was written by Maia Khasia and Tsira Chanturia, and edited by Jacqueline Macalesher. This research report is based on national research papers prepared by Prison Monitoring Group (Armenia), Public Committee of Monitoring over Penitentiaries of the Ministry of Justice (Azerbaijan), and Maia Khasia (Georgia). This research paper has been produced in conjunction with Penal Reform International’s project “Progressive Abolition of the Death Penalty and Alternatives that Respect International Human Rights Standards”, with the financial assistance of the European Union under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Penal Reform International and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.
    [Show full text]