DOCSLIB.ORG

1-1 Class #1 for Criminal Law Criminal Classification, Sources of Criminal Law, & Criminal Law Interpretation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1-1 Class #1 for Criminal Law Criminal Classification, Sources of Criminal Law, & Criminal Law Interpretation CLASS #1 FOR CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL CLASSIFICATION, SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW, & CRIMINAL LAW INTERPRETATION Professor Byron L. Warnken -- University of Baltimore School of Law Copyright © 2011, 1980. All rights reserved. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW & CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES Sources of criminal law in Maryland Sources of federal criminal law Common law crimes as of 07-04-1776 (adopted through Md. Decl. Rights), as amended No common law (except in D.C.) Enacted law (Md. Const., Md. Crim. Law Code Ann., Md. Crim. Proc. Code Ann., & Md. Rules) Enacted law (U.S. Const., U.S. Code, CFR’s, Fed. R. Crim. P., & treaties) Case law (SCOTUS, COA, & CSA) State law as adopted by Assimilative Crimes Act Case law (SCOTUS, federal Cts. of App., & federal Dist. Cts.) Classification of crimes in Maryland (mala in se (inherently wrong) & mala prohibita (legislatively determined to be wrong)) Felonies INTERPRETATION OF SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW Misdemeanors Common law “MR/MRS LAMB” felonies (except as abrogated by statute) & statutes creating felonies Common law & statutory crimes that are not felonies INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL LAW Enacted law: Rules of statutory construction (judicial review under Marbury v. Madison) Case law: Stare decisis (like cases should be decided in like manner) applied to judge-made case-by-case common law & to judicial Statutes Ambiguous statutes – need statutory construction to determine legislative intent, Void for interpretation of enacted law plain on aided by legislative history (reports, debates, & hearings) & purpose of statute vagueness their face – (title & preamble/introduction) statutes – no need for violate Due statutory Presumed Strict/narrow Reconciliation Comparison Special Process Clause Mandatory Authority Persuasive (non- construction aware of construction problems (no fair binding authority) (every day existing law Presumption warning/notice, Primary & Secondary words have that law is susceptible to Authority constitutional every day Implicit Strictly Same law Ejusdem arbitrary & (& severable, Holding/rationale in Non-binding cases in meaning) acceptance construe (perhaps generis vs. discriminatory if not) reported opinion from mandatory of case law statutes in multiple expressio enforcement, & binding jurisdiction jurisdictions (dicta, (reenactment derogation enactments unius, “chilling” effect Common interpreting common distinguishable law, or inaction) of common over time) exclusio on sense law or exact version of &/or distinguishable law alterius constitutional approach rights) enacted law w/ non- facts); cases in non- Implied Same bill Mandatory distinguishable facts binding jurisdictions; exceptions (perhaps vs. directory (SCOTUS, federal secondary authority multiple language courts (one of 12 Construe amendments federal circuits & one Express Strictly statutes as a leading to Disjunctive of 94 federal districts), rejection of construe whole enactment) vs. & state courts case law criminal conjunctive (intermediate appellate Special over (striking statutes court (CSA) & state general Supreme Court (COA)) change of Singular vs. expression) Later over plural earlier 1-1 CRIMINAL LAW CLASSIFICATION, SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW, & INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL LAW I. Classification of crimes A. Criminal classification versus non-criminal classification: Any conduct (or failure to act when required to act) for which a criminal sanction is provided is criminal. B. Felony classification versus misdemeanor classification. At common law, crimes were divided into three categories: treason, felonies, and misdemeanors. Hyman Ginsberg & Isidore Ginsberg, Maryland Criminal Law & Procedure 5 (1940). In Prout v. State, 311 Md. 348 (1988), the Court of Appeals stated that that “infamous crimes” include treason, felonies, and misdemeanors based on dishonesty. 1. Felony offenses a. Common law felonies: Felonies at common law were typically offenses punishable by death or subject to forfeiture of land or goods. Maryland Criminal Law & Procedure § 5, at 6. In Director of Finance Prince George‟s County v. Cole, 296 Md. 607 (1983), the Court of Appeals stated that, at common law, felonies and treason were punished by forfeiture of life and/or forfeiture of land. (1) MR. & MRS. LAMB: The common law felonies were Murder, Rape, Manslaughter, Robbery, Sodomy, Larceny, Arson, Mayhem, and Burglary. Lewis Hochheimer, The Law of Crimes & Criminal Procedure § 4 (1904); In Fisher v. State, 367 Md. 218 (2001), the Court of Appeals stated that crimes that are dangerous to life are generally felonies. (2) Treason: Treason was in a category separate from felonies and was considered an “infamous crime.” The Law of Crimes & Criminal Procedure § 2. b. Typical modern approaches to felony classification (1) Place of incarceration: In some jurisdictions, felonies are offenses punishable by death or by incarceration in particular institutions, e.g., state penitentiary versus county jail. (2) Length of incarceration: In some jurisdictions, felonies are offenses punishable by death or by incarceration for a particular period, e.g., in excess of one year. c. Maryland felonies (Ginsburg & Ginsburg, supra at 6) (1) Common law felonies: In Fisher v. State, 367 Md. 218, 251 2001), the Court of Appeals identified the common law felonies. (2) Statutory offenses that provide that the offense is a felony: 1-2 In Fabian v. State, 3 Md. App. 270 (1968), the Court of Special Appeals held that, if a statutory crime is not declared a felony by the legislature, the crime is a misdemeanor. 2. Misdemeanor offenses: In Maryland, all offenses that are not felonies are misdemeanors. In Fabian, 3 Md. App. 270, the Court of Special Appeals recognized that, at common law, minor crimes were not punishable forfeiture of life or forfeiture of goods. Accord Williams v. State, 4 Md. App. 342 (1968). 3. Significance of felony-misdemeanor distinction a. Within elements: Some offenses contain the felony-misdemeanor distinction within their elements. (1) Felony murder: Felony murder requires that the murder be committed during the perpetration of a felony. Evans v. State, 28 Md. App. 640 (1975), aff‟d, 297 Md. 178 (1976). A Defendant is guilty of felony murder only when the intent to commit a felony arises prior to, or concurrent with, the death of the victim. State v. Allen, 387 Md. 389 (2005). (2) Burglary: The mental state element for common law burglary is the intent to commit a felony therein. Reed v. State, 316 Md. 521 (1989); Vandegrift v. State, 226 Md. 38 (1961). (3) Misprision of a felony: For misprision of a felony, the offense concealed must be a felony. This offense was abrogated in Maryland in Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309 (1979). (4) Compounding a felony: An individual compounds a felony when that person receives some consideration in return for an agreement not to prosecute or inform on someone who is known to have committed a felony. Wayne LaFave, Criminal Law § 13.6, at 753-61 (5th ed. 2010); Pope, 284 Md. 309. b. Subject matter jurisdiction (1) State District Court in Maryland: District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over most misdemeanors. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 4-301. (2) State Circuit Court in Maryland: Circuit Court has exclusive jurisdiction over most felonies. Id. § 4-302. c. Statute of limitations: The purpose of a statute of limitations is to prevent Defendants from having to defend against stale criminal charges. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971); Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970). 1-3 (1) Common law: There was no distinction between felonies and misdemeanors at common law, as to statute of limitations, because there was no statute of limitations. See Massey v. State, 320 Md. 605 (1990) (juxtaposing Maryland‟s statutes of limitations with common, which had no statute of limitations. See The Law of Crimes & Criminal Procedure at 78; 1 Chitty, A Practical Treatise On The Criminal Law 160 (1819). (2) Maryland (a) Felonies & most misdemeanors: For all felonies and for misdemeanors with a statutory penalty of potential confinement in the Division of Correction (DOC), there is no statute of limitations. See State v. Stowe, 376 Md. 436 (2003); Greco v. State, 65 Md. App. 56 (1985). (b) Some misdemeanors: For most misdemeanors with no statutory penalty of DOC confinement, there is a one-year statute of limitations. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-106(a). d. Accomplice liability consequences (1) Felonies: For felonies, accomplice liability is divided into principals in the first degree, principals in the second degree, accessories before the fact, and accessories after the fact. Acquittal of a principal in the first degree does not bar conviction of a principal in the second degree for aiding and abetting the crime. Owens v. State, 161 Md. App. 91 (2005). (2) Treason: In Agresti v. State, 2 Md. App. 278 (1967), the Court of Special Appeals stated that, for treason, all parties are principals. (3) Misdemeanors: For misdemeanors, all parties are principals, except accessories after the fact, for which there is no criminal liability. In State v. Hawkins 326 Md. 270 (1992), the Court of Appeals held that all participants in a misdemeanor are deemed to be principals. Accord Broadway v. State, 23 Md. App. 68 (1974). e. Effect on applicability of defenses (1) Defense of property: Defense of property requires an inherently dangerous felony to permit the use of deadly force. Sydnor v. State, 365 Md. 205 (2001); Ginsberg & Ginsberg, supra at 85-86. 1-4 (2) Crime prevention: At common law, misdemeanor warrantless arrests required the crime to be committed in the officer‟s presence. There was no such limitation on felony warrantless arrests. See, e.g., Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001). f. Sentencing consequences (1) Value of property: Classification of a crime against property as a felony or misdemeanor is usually based on the value of the property, even though the value of the property is not an element of the offense. For theft, the value of the goods or services differentiates felonies (maximum penalty of ten to 25 years) from misdemeanors (maximum penalty of 18 months). In 1979, the felony line was increased from $100 to $300.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense
    63 Section 7: Criminal Offense, Criminal Responsibility, and Commission of a Criminal Offense Article 15: Criminal Offense A criminal offense is an unlawful act: (a) that is prescribed as a criminal offense by law; (b) whose characteristics are specified by law; and (c) for which a penalty is prescribed by law. Commentary This provision reiterates some of the aspects of the principle of legality and others relating to the purposes and limits of criminal legislation. Reference should be made to Article 2 (“Purpose and Limits of Criminal Legislation”) and Article 3 (“Principle of Legality”) and their accompanying commentaries. Article 16: Criminal Responsibility A person who commits a criminal offense is criminally responsible if: (a) he or she commits a criminal offense, as defined under Article 15, with intention, recklessness, or negligence as defined in Article 18; IOP573A_ModelCodes_Part1.indd 63 6/25/07 10:13:18 AM 64 • General Part, Section (b) no lawful justification exists under Articles 20–22 of the MCC for the commission of the criminal offense; (c) there are no grounds excluding criminal responsibility for the commission of the criminal offense under Articles 2–26 of the MCC; and (d) there are no other statutorily defined grounds excluding criminal responsibility. Commentary When a person is found criminally responsible for the commission of a criminal offense, he or she can be convicted of this offense, and a penalty or penalties may be imposed upon him or her as provided for in the MCC. Article 16 lays down the elements required for a finding of criminal responsibility against a person.
    [Show full text]
  • Nvcc College-Wide Course Content Summary Lgl 218 - Criminal Law (3 Cr.)
    NVCC COLLEGE-WIDE COURSE CONTENT SUMMARY LGL 218 - CRIMINAL LAW (3 CR.) COURSE DESCRIPTION Focuses on major crimes, including their classification, elements of proof, intent, conspiracy, responsibility, parties, and defenses. Emphasizes Virginia law. May include general principles of applicable Constitutional law and criminal procedure. Lecture 3 hours per week. GENERAL COURSE PURPOSE This course is designed to introduce the student to the various substantive and procedural areas of criminal law. ENTRY LEVEL COMPETENCIES Although there are no prerequisites for this course, proficiency (at the high school level) in spoken and written English is recommended for its successful completion. COURSE OBJECTIVES Upon completion of this course, the student should be able to: - describe the structure of the criminal justice system - describe the elements of various federal and Virginia state crimes - understand the ways in which a person can become a party to a crime - describe the elements of various affirmative defenses to federal and Virginia state crimes - understand the basic structure of the law governing arrest, search and seizure, and recognize Constitutional issues posed in these areas - describe the stages of criminal proceedings, in both federal and state courts, and assist a prosecutor or defense lawyer at each stage of such proceedings MAJOR TOPICS TO BE INCLUDED - crimes versus moral wrongs - felonies vs. misdemeanors - criminal capacity - actus reas, mens rea and causation - elements of various federal and Virginia state crimes - inchoate crimes: attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy - parties to a crime - affirmative defenses - insanity - probable cause - arrest, with and without a warrant - search and seizure, with and without a warrant - grand jury indictments - bail and pretrial release - pretrial proceedings - steps of trial and appeal EXTRA TOPICS WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED - purposes of criminal law and punishment - sentencing, probation and parole - special issues posed by mental illness - special issues posed by the death penalty .
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Justice for Children: Mexico
    ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: MEXICO This report was produced by White & Case LLP in November 2013 but may have been subsequently edited by Child Rights International Network (CRIN). CRIN takes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in the report. I. What is the legal status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)? ​ A. What is the status of the CRC and other relevant ratified international instruments in the national legal system? ​ The CRC was signed by Mexico on 26 January 1990, ratified on 21 November 1990, and published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) on 25 ​ ​ January 1991. In addition to the CRC, Mexico has ratified the Optional Protocols relating to the involvement of children in armed conflict and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. All treaties signed by the President of Mexico, with the approval of the Senate, are deemed to constitute the supreme law of Mexico, together with the Constitution and the laws of the Congress of the Union.1 The CRC is therefore part of national law and may serve as a legal basis in any proceedings before the national courts. It is also part of the supreme law of Mexico as a whole and must be implemented at federal level and in all the individual states.2 B. Does the CRC take precedence over national law The CRC has been interpreted to take precedence over national laws, but not the Constitution. According to doctrinal thesis LXXVII/99 of November 1999, international treaties are ranked second immediately after the Constitution and ahead of federal and local laws.3 On several occasions, Mexico’s Supreme Court has stated that international ​ treaties take precedence over national law, mainly in the case of human rights.4 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime
    Please cite as: Getoš Kalac, A.M. (2020): Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime – the Role of Criminology? Conference Paper presented at the 2019 biannual conference of the Scientific Association of German, Austrian and Swiss Criminologists (KrimG) in Vienna. Forthcoming in: Neue Kriminologische Schriftenreihe der Kriminologischen Gesellschaft e.V., vol. 118, Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg. Guilt, Dangerousness and Liability in the Era of Pre-Crime – the Role of Criminology? To Adapt, or to Die, that is the Question!1 Anna-Maria Getoš Kalac Abstract: There is no doubt that, in terms of criminal policy, we have been living in an era of pre-crime for quite some time now. Whether we like it or not, times have changed and so has the general position on concepts of (criminal) guilt, dangerousness and liability. Whereas once there was a broad consensus that penal repression, at least in principle, should be executed in a strictly post-crime fashion, nowadays same consensus has been reached on trading freedom (from penal repression) for (promised) security, long before an ‘actual crime’ might even be committed. In this regard the criminalisation of endangerment and risks only nomotechnically solves the issue of ‘actual’ vs. ‘potential’ crimes – in essence it merely creates a normative fiction of pre-crime crimes, whereas in reality ‘actual crimes’ do not exist at all. The starting point of criminalisation has clearly shifted away from the guilt of having committed a crime, to the mere dangerousness of potentially committing a crime, which potential as such is purely hypothetical and beyond the grasp of empirical proof.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Supreme Court Adopts a Reasonable Juvenile Standard in J.D.B. V. North Carolina
    THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ADOPTS A REASONABLE JUVENILE STANDARD IN J.D.B. V NORTH CAROLINA FOR PURPOSES OF THE MIRANDA CUSTODY ANALYSIS: CAN A MORE REASONED JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR JUVENILES BE FAR BEHIND? Marsha L. Levick and Elizabeth-Ann Tierney∗ I. Introduction II. The Reasonable Person Standard a. Background b. The Reasonable Person Standard and Children: Kids Are Different III. Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida: Embedding Developmental Research Into the Court’s Constitutional Analysis IV. From Miranda v. Arizona to J.D.B. v. North Carolina V. J.D.B. v. North Carolina: The Facts and The Analysis VI. Reasonableness Applied: Justifications, Defenses, and Excuses a. Duress Defenses b. Justified Use of Force c. Provocation d. Negligent Homicide e. Felony Murder VII. Conclusion I. Introduction The “reasonable person” in American law is as familiar to us as an old shoe. We slip it on without thinking; we know its shape, style, color, and size without looking. Beginning with our first-year law school classes in torts and criminal law, we understand that the reasonable person provides a measure of liability and responsibility in our legal system.1 She informs our * ∗Marsha L. Levick is the Deputy Director and Chief Counsel for Juvenile Law Center, a national public interest law firm for children, based in Philadelphia, Pa., which Ms. Levick co-founded in 1975. Ms. Levick is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University School of Law. Elizabeth-Ann “LT” Tierney is the 2011 Sol and Helen Zubrow Fellow in Children's Law at the Juvenile Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • A Content Analysis of Crimes Posted on Social Media Platforms Abstract I. Introduction
    82 — Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 9, No. 1 • Spring 2018 A Content Analysis of Crimes Posted on Social Media Platforms Alessandra Brainard Strategic Communications Elon University Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications Abstract With an increasing rate of violent crimes across the country as well as an uptick in crime in the news, perpetrators have turned to social media to gain attention, posting their crimes online. This study analyzed the motives of individuals who post their crimes on social media. By incorporating Sigmund Freud’s theories on guilt and utilizing a narrative criticism of testimony, the findings demonstrate a lack of remorse and guilt on the part of criminals who conduct unlawful acts, such as drunk driving, gang rape, and murder. The study concluded that the rationale behind committing the crime and posting evidence of the illegal activities on social media outlets stems from the drive of human beings to be recognized by others in their environment and social media communities. I. Introduction Historical Context With a skyrocketing presence of violent crimes across the country as well as an increase in crime in the news, perpetrators are turning to social media to gain attention by posting their crimes on social media platforms. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report showed an increase in violent crime in 38 out of 50 states in 2016 (FBI, 2016). Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has attempted to raise awareness around this issue, has declared, “The Department of Justice is committed to working with our state, local, and tribal partners across the country to deter violent crime, dismantle criminal organizations and gangs, stop the scourge of drug trafficking, and send a strong message to criminals that we will not surrender our communities to lawlessness and violence” (The United States Department of Justice, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Incest Statutes
    Statutory Compilation Regarding Incest Statutes March 2013 Scope This document is a comprehensive compilation of incest statutes from U.S. state, territorial, and the federal jurisdictions. It is up-to-date as of March 2013. For further assistance, consult the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at 703.549.9222, or via the free online prosecution assistance service http://www.ndaa.org/ta_form.php. *The statutes in this compilation are current as of March 2013. Please be advised that these statutes are subject to change in forthcoming legislation and Shepardizing is recommended. 1 National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse National District Attorneys Association Table of Contents ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 ALA. CODE § 13A-13-3 (2013). INCEST .................................................................................................................... 8 ALA. CODE § 30-1-3 (2013). LEGITIMACY OF ISSUE OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES ...................................................... 8 ALASKA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.450 (2013). INCEST .............................................................................................................. 8 ALASKA R. EVID. RULE 505 (2013)
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning Law Is
    CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REASONING LAW IS "MAN MADE" IT CHANGES OVER TIME TO ACCOMMODATE SOCIETY'S NEEDS LAW IS MADE BY LEGISLATURE LAW IS INTERPRETED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE 1)WHETHER IT IS "CONSTITUTIONAL" 2)WHO IS RIGHT OR WRONG THERE IS A PROCESS WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED (CALLED "PROCEDURAL LAW") I. Thomas Jefferson: "The study of the law qualifies a man to be useful to himself, to his neighbors, and to the public." II. Ask Several Students to give their definition of "Law." A. Even after years and thousands of dollars, "LAW" still is not easy to define B. What does law Consist of ? Law consists of enforceable rule governing relationships among individuals and between individuals and their society. 1. Students Need to Understand. a. The law is a set of general ideas b. When these general ideas are applied, a judge cannot fit a case to suit a rule; he must fit (or find) a rule to suit the unique case at hand. c. The judge must also supply legitimate reasons for his decisions. C. So, How was the Law Created. The law considered in this text are "man made" law. This law can (and will) change over time in response to the changes and needs of society. D. Example. Grandma, who is 87 years old, walks into a pawn shop. She wants to sell her ring that has been in the family for 200 years. Grandma asks the dealer, "how much will you give me for this ring." The dealer, in good faith, tells Grandma he doesn't know what kind of metal is in the ring, but he will give her $150.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia
    (not official copy) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA GENERAL PART Section One : GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1. LEGISLATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Article 1. Legislation Governing Criminal Proceedings Article 2. Objectives of the Criminal-Procedure Legislation Article 3. Territory of Effect of the Criminal-procedure Law Article 4. Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law in the Course of Time Article 5. Peculiarities in the Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law Article 6. Definitions of the Basic Notions Used in the Criminal-procedure Code CHAPTER 2. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Article 7. Legitimacy Article 8. Equality of All Before the Law Article 9. Respect for the Rights, Freedoms and Dignity of an Individual Article 10. Ensuring the Right to Legal Assistance Article 11. Immunity of Person Article 12. Immunity of Residence Article 13. Security of Property Article 14. Confidentiality of Correspondence, Telephone Conversations, Mail, Telegraph and Other Communications Article 15. Language of Criminal Proceedings Article 16. Public Trial Article 17. Fair Trial Article 18. Presumption of Innocence Article 19. The Right to Defense of the Suspect and the Accused and Guarantees for this Right Article 20. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (not official copy) Article 21. Inadmissibility of Repeated Conviction and Criminal Prosecution for the Same Crime Article 22. Rehabilitation of the Rights of the Persons who suffered from Judicial Mistakes Article 23. Adversarial System of Criminal Proceedings Article 24. Administration of Justice Exclusively by the Court Article 25. Independent Assessment of Evidence CHAPTER 3. CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CASE Article 26. Conduct of Criminal Case Article 27. The Obligation to institute a criminal case and resolution of the crime Article 28.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Criminal Justice Issues
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice CriticalCritical CriminalCriminal JusticeJustice IssuesIssues TaskTask ForceForce ReportsReports FromFrom thethe AmericanAmerican SocietySociety ofof CriminologyCriminology toto AttorneyAttorney GeneralGeneral JanetJanet RenoReno FOREWORD There is a discernible urgency to the crime issue. Crime and the fear of crime rank as the most important issues in public opinion polls. Some communities resemble war zones where gunshots ring out every night. Other cities struggle to create islands of civility amid threats to public order posed by low-level criminal behavior that eludes traditional measures. Appropriately, public policymakers and administrators in the criminal justice system are responding to the issue of crime in all its complexity. Every aspect of the infrastructure of our traditional criminal justice policy is undergo- ing fundamental rethinking. Our approaches to policing, adjudication, sentencing, imprisonment, and community corrections are changing in significant ways. Indeed, communities that are suffering from crime are changing their interactions with the agencies of the criminal justice system as the concepts of community policing, community prosecution, and community justice take on real meaning in cities and towns around the country. This combination—a sense of urgency on the part of the public and a rapidly changing policy response—creates a compelling need for policy-relevant research. When Attorney General Janet Reno addressed the American Society of Criminology at its annual meeting in November 1994, she challenged Society members to translate their re- search findings into recommendations that would benefit the practitioners and policymakers who confront the issues of crime and justice. The reports presented in these pages are the response to that challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Nebraska Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
    Nebraska Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Manual for Automated Agencies November, 2000 Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice 301 Centennial Mall South, P.O. Box 94946 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4946 (402) 471-2194 TABLE OF CONTENTS NEBRASKA INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM (NIBRS) ........................ 1 Definition of "Incident” ...................................................... 4 DATA REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 7 Requirements for each Group A Offense ......................................... 8 Requirements for Arrests for Group A and Group B Offenses ......................... 15 DEFINITIONS OF BASIC CORE, ADDITIONAL DATA ELEMENT AND ARRESTEE ELEMENTS Age .................................................................... 17 Aggravated Assault / Homicide Circumstances .................................... 17 Armed With . 18 Arrest Date . 19 Arrest (Transaction) Number ................................................. 19 Arrest Offense Code ........................................................ 19 Attempted / Completed ..................................................... 19 Criminal Activity Type ..................................................... 20 Date Recovered ........................................................... 20 Disposition of Arrestee Under Age 18 .......................................... 20 Drug Type / Type Criminal Activity (Arrestee) ................................... 21 Estimated Drug Quantity / Type Drug Measurement ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Misprison of Felony
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 8 Fall 9-1-1953 Misprison of Felony E. L. Morgan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation E. Lee Morgan, Misprison of Felony, 6 S.C.L.R. 87. (1953). This Note is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Morgan: Misprison of Felony MISPRISION OF FELONY Misprision1 of felony has been defined in various ways, but per- haps its best definition is as follows: "Misprision of felony at common law is a criminal neglect either to prevent a felony from being committed or to bring the offender to justice after its com- mission, but without such previous concert with or subsequent assis- tance of him as will make the concealer an accessory before or after 12 the fact." In the modern use of the term, misprision of felony has been said to be almost, if not identically, the same offense as that of an acces- sory after the fact.3 It has also been stated that misprision is nothing more than a word used to describe a misdemeanor which does not possess a specific name.4 It is that offense of concealing a felony committed by another, but without such previous concert with or subsequent assistance to the felon as would make the concealing party an accessory before or after the fact.5 Misprision is distinguished from compounding an offense on the basis of consideration or amends; misprision is a bare concealment of crime, while compounding is a concealment for a reward by one 6 directly injured by the crime.
    [Show full text]