DOCSLIB.ORG

Sentencing Guidelines Compliance FY2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sentencing Guidelines Compliance FY2006 JUDICIALJUDICIAL CONCURRENCECONCURRENCE PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 FY2006FY2006 GuidelineGuideline WorksheetsWorksheets CodedCoded && KeyedKeyed asas ofof 3/10/063/10/06 (N=5,304) Drug-1/2 32.4% Larceny 20.8% Fraud 12.2% Traffic 8.3% Assault 5.5% Burg-Dwell 3.9% Drug-Other 3.8% Burg-Other 3.1% Nonviolent 87.7% Mis c 3.0% Violent 12.3% Robbery 2.7% Sexual Assault 1.7% Murder 1.1% Rape 0.9% Kidnap 0.4% GENERALGENERAL COMPLIANCECOMPLIANCE Judicial Agreement with Guideline Recommendations Preliminary FY2006 General Compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the overall guidelines recommendation. Overall Compliance Rate Direction of Departures Mitigation 8.9% Aggravation 9.6% Mitigation 48.1% Aggravation 51.9% Compliance 81.5% FY05 81.2% RecommendedRecommended vs.vs. ActualActual DispositionDisposition PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Dispositional Compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the type of sanction recommended by the guidelines. Actual Disposition Recommended Probation / Incarceration Incarceration Disposition No Incarceration less than 6 months over 6 months Probation/No Incarceration 74.4% 21.9% 3.6% Incarceration less than 6 months 9.3% 79.3% 11.4% Incarceration over 6 months 4.7% 7.9% 87.4% JudicialJudicial AgreementAgreement withwith SentenceSentence LengthLength PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Durational compliance: The degree to which judges agree with the sentence length recommended in jail and prison cases. Durational Compliance Direction of Departures Aggravation 9.4% Mitigation 9.0% Mitigation 49.0% Aggravation 51.0% Compliance 81.6% DEPARTUREDEPARTURE REASONSREASONS MostMost FrequentlyFrequently CitedCited DepartureDeparture ReasonsReasons Mitigating (8.9%) Aggravating (9.6%) • Plea Agreement • Plea Agreement • Cooperative with • Flagrancy of the Offense Authorities • Previous Conviction for • Good Potential for Same Offense Rehabilitation • Guidelines • Sentenced to Alternative Recommendation Too Low Sanction • Poor Potential for • Recommendation of CA/PO Rehabilitation COMPLIANCECOMPLIANCE BYBY JUDICIALJUDICIAL CIRCUITCIRCUIT Circuit Name Circuit Number Compliance Mitigation Aggravation Number of Cases Alexandria 18 76.4% 9.0% 14.6% 89 Arlington Area 17 74.0% 5.0% 21.0% 119 Bristol Area 28 75.8% 13.2% 11.0% 91 Buchanan Area 29 72.2% 10.2% 17.6% 108 Charlottesville Area 16 82.5% 7.2% 10.3% 97 Chesapeake 1 87.2% 5.4% 7.4% 202 Chesterfield Area 12 79.1% 7.2% 13.7% 249 Danville Area 22 74.5% 7.8% 17.7% 141 Fairfax 19 82.8% 6.9% 10.3% 262 Fredericksburg Area 15 73.0% 9.7% 17.3% 329 Hampton 8 86.5% 7.6% 5.9% 119 Harrisonburg Area 26 73.4% 14.5% 12.1% 207 Henrico 14 79.2% 9.2% 11.6% 251 Lee Area 30 85.3% 8.0% 6.7% 75 Loudoun Area 20 87.8% 7.5% 4.7% 106 Lynchburg Area 24 77.2% 15.5% 7.3% 220 Martinsville Area 21 88.7% 8.5% 2.8% 71 Newport News 7 85.0% 6.4% 8.6% 187 Norfolk 4 86.3% 8.8% 4.9% 365 Petersburg Area 11 89.9% 5.8% 4.3% 69 Portsmouth 3 80.6% 12.4% 7.0% 186 Prince William Area 31 79.8% 5.8% 14.4% 104 Radford Area 27 94.1% 3.6% 2.3% 221 Richmond City 13 84.4% 8.0% 7.6% 275 Roanoke Area 23 73.1% 14.6% 12.3% 130 South Boston Area 10 86.6% 10.4% 3.0% 134 Staunton Area 25 84.3% 9.4% 6.3% 256 Suffolk Area 5 81.1% 10.4% 8.5% 106 Sussex Area 6 77.3% 10.7% 12.0% 75 Virginia Beach 2 85.8% 7.6% 6.6% 316 Williamsburg Area 9 78.8% 9.2% 12.0% 142 ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Fredericksburg Area (15) 73% Roanoke (23) 73% Buchanan Area (29) 72% ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Petersburg Area (11) 90% Martinsville Area (21) 89% Radford Area (27) 94% ComplianceCompliance byby JudicialJudicial CircuitCircuit PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 58%58% ofof CircuitsCircuits ComplianceCompliance RateRate atat leastleast 80%80% JUDICIALJUDICIAL CONCURRENCECONCURRENCE BYBY TYPETYPE OFOF OFFENSEOFFENSE JudicialJudicial ConcurrenceConcurrence byby TypeType ofof OffenseOffense PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 100% 9.1% 6.2% 8.9% 8.0% 9.0% 10.4% 12.3% 12.0% 12.0% 10.3% 10.9% 10.7% 15.5% 8.7% 5.6% 5.5% 7.7% 5.0% 8.9% 16.0% 12.7% 15.2% 19.4% 34.8% 80% 17.4% 20.0% 17.2% 60% 13.0% 85.3% 85.2% 84.1% 83.3% 82.7% 40% 79.1% 76.0% 75.3% 74.5% 71.7% 71.5% 69.3% 67.2% 52.2% 20% 0% Larceny Fraud Drug-Other Drug-1/2 Traffic Misc Rape Bur-Other Assault Sexual Robbery Bur-Dwell Murder Kidnap Assault Compliance Mitigation Aggravation NONVIOLENTNONVIOLENT RISKRISK ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT NonviolentNonviolent RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 • Drug, Fraud, & Larceny • Purpose: To recommend alternative sanctions for offenders who are statistically less likely to recidivate – Shorter jail sentence – Probation Larceny – Treatment Programs 30.0% Drug I/II 46.8% Fraud 17.7% Drug Other 5.5% NonviolentNonviolent RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Eligible Risk Assessment Cases Alternative Sanctions Recommended & Received Not Recommended for Alternative & Received 11.2 Not Recommended for Recommended for Alternative & Did Not Alternative & Received Receive 20.1 41.7 Recommended for Alternative & Did Not Receive 27.0 SEXSEX OFFENDEROFFENDER RISKRISK ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT SexSex OffenderOffender RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 • Rape & Other Sexual Assault • Purpose: – To extend the upper end of the guidelines recommendation for sex offenders who are statistically more likely to recidivate SexSex OffenderOffender RiskRisk AssessmentAssessment PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Other Sexual Assault Risk Levels Rape Risk Levels (n=92) (n=50) Level 3 Level 3 21% 28% No Adjustment No Adjustment Level 2 56% 57% 17% Level 2 10% Level 1 Level 1 5% 6% SentencingSentencing inin SexSex OffenderOffender CasesCases PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Other Sexual Assault Cases (n=92) 17.4% 64.1% 7.6% 10.9% Mitigation Regular Compliance Adjusted High Aggravation Compliance Rape Cases (n=50) 16% 66% 10% 8% Adjusted High Mitigation Regular Compliance Aggravation Compliance JURYJURY SENTENCINGSENTENCING JuryJury SentencingSentencing ParoleParole vs.vs. TruthTruth--inin--SentencingSentencing Truth-in-Sentencing Parole System 6.5% 6.4% 6.3% 5.8% 5.2% 5.1% 4.7% 4.2% 4.2% 3.9% 2.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 Prelim 06 JuryJury vs.vs. NonNon--JuryJury SentencingSentencing Jury Cases Non-Jury Cases (N=77) (N=5,227) Aggravation Aggravation 9% 34% Compliance Mitigation 9% 56% Compliance 82% Mitigation 10% SENTENCINGSENTENCING REVOCATIONREVOCATION REPORTSREPORTS && PROBATIONPROBATION VIOLATIONVIOLATION GUIDELINESGUIDELINES JulyJuly 1,1, 20052005 –– DecemberDecember 31,31, 20052005 Circuit Name Judicial Circuit Frequency Alexandria 18 107 Arlington Area 17 26 Number of Sentencing Revocation Reports Bristol Area 28 81 (SRRs) Received by Circuit Buchanan Area 29 112 Charlottesville Area 16 107 Chesapeake 1 312 Chesterfield Area 12 129 Danville Area 22 222 Fairfax 19 227 • Technical & New Law Violations Fredericksburg Area 15 118 Hampton 8 152 (Condition 1) Harrisonburg Area 26 202 Henrico 14 154 Lee Area 30 23 Loudoun Area 20 98 • Probation, Suspended Sentence, Lynchburg Area 24 136 Good Behavior, etc., Violations Martinsville Area 21 123 Newport News 7 200 Norfolk 4 68 Petersburg Area 11 28 • Current & Old Forms Portsmouth 3 193 Prince William Area 31 177 Radford Area 27 132 Richmond City 13 245 Roanoke Area 23 123 South Boston Area 10 102 Staunton Area 25 113 Suffolk Area 5 114 Sussex Area 6 46 Virginia Beach 2 169 Williamsburg Area 9 117 Total 4156 ProbationProbation ViolationViolation GuidelinesGuidelines •Issues – Number of SRRs & guidelines received by Circuit – Number of revocations received that are missing guidelines (9%) – Number of guidelines received on old forms • 19% • Significant changes in FY2006 • Letter to specific jurisdictions reminding them to use new forms ProbationProbation ViolationViolation GuidelinesGuidelines Sentenced July 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005 (n=1,791) Percentage of Violation Guidelines Received by Type of Original Offense Drugs 38.3 Larceny 21.9 Frau d 13.6 Burglary 8.2 Tr a f f i c 5.6 Assault 4.1 SexOffense 3.4 Robbery 1.8 Technical Violators Weapons 1.0 by Type of Most Serious Original Offense Arson 0.5 Vandalism 0.4 Nonviolent Offenders 88.6% Family 0.3 Prisoner 0.2 Violent Offenders 11.4% Kidnap 0.2 Supervision 0.1 Perjury 0.1 Murder 0.1 Es c a pe 0.1 Obscenity 0.1 FTA 0.1 ConditionsConditions CitedCited inin TechnicalTechnical ViolationViolation CasesCases (n=1,791) Use, etc., controlled substances 29.6 Abscond from supervision 29.5 Special court-imposed conditions 29.0 Use alcohol to excess 5.6 Move without permission 3.2 Restitution/court costs 46% Fail to report to PO as instructed 2.3 Substance abuse treatment 25% Alternative programs 11% Fail to follow instructions, truthful/cooperative 0.3 Sex offender restrictions 3% Fail to report arrest to PO 0.2 Mental health treatment 2% No contact w/ victim/minor 2% Use, possess, etc., firearm 0.1 Community service 2% Fail to maintain regular employment 0.1 PROBATIONPROBATION VIOLATIONVIOLATION GUIDELINESGUIDELINES JUDICIALJUDICIAL CONCURRENCECONCURRENCE JulyJuly 1,1, 20052005 –– DecemberDecember 31,31, 20052005 PVGPVG JudicialJudicial ConcurrenceConcurrence PreliminaryPreliminary FY2006FY2006 Aggravation 21.2% Compliance 49.5% Mitigation 29.3% Preliminary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WALKER V. GEORGIA
    Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 THOMAS, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARTEMUS RICK WALKER v. GEORGIA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA No. 08–5385. Decided October 20, 2008 JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the denial of the peti- tion of certiorari. Petitioner brutally murdered Lynwood Ray Gresham, and was sentenced to death for his crime. JUSTICE STEVENS objects to the proportionality review undertaken by the Georgia Supreme Court on direct review of peti- tioner’s capital sentence. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, afforded petitioner’s sentence precisely the same proportionality review endorsed by this Court in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279 (1987); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U. S. 37 (1984); Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983); and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), and described in Pulley as a “safeguard against arbitrary or capricious sentencing” additional to that which is constitu- tionally required, Pulley, supra, at 45. Because the Geor- gia Supreme Court made no error in applying its statuto- rily required proportionality review in this case, I concur in the denial of certiorari. In May 1999, petitioner recruited Gary Lee Griffin to help him “rob and kill a rich white man” and “take the money, take the jewels.” Pet. for Cert. 5 (internal quota- tion marks omitted); 282 Ga. 774, 774–775, 653 S. E. 2d 439, 443, (2007). Petitioner and Griffin packed two bicy- cles in a borrowed car, dressed in black, and took a knife and stun gun to Gresham’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy
    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
    [Show full text]
  • SECOND CONCURRENCE SCHALLER, J., Concurring
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** CONNECTICUT COALITION FOR JUSTICE IN EDUCATION FUNDING, INC. v. RELLÐSECOND
    [Show full text]
  • Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey Author(s): Michael Oliver Foley Document No.: 181241 Date Received: 04/14/2000 Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0032 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL-FINAL TO NCJRS Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey h4ichael Oliver Foley A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The City University of New York. 2000 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I... I... , ii 02000 Michael Oliver Foley All Rights Reserved This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Group “A” Offenses Group “B” Offenses
    Group “A” Offenses Group “B” Offenses Group B’s MUST have an arrest to be NIBRS Reportable NIBRS NIBRS NIBRS OFFENSES CODES NIBRS OFFENSES CODES NIBRS NIBRS Arson 200 Human Trafficking NIBRS OFFENSES CODES NIBRS OFFENSES CODES -Commercial Sex Acts 64A Assault Offenses -Involuntary Servitude 64B Bad Checks 90A Family Offenses, Non- 90F -Aggravated Assault 13A Violent -Simple Assault 13B Kidnapping/Abduction 100 -Intimidation 13C Curfew/Loitering/Vagrancy 90B Liquor Law Violations 90G Larceny/Theft Offenses Violations Bribery 510 -Pocket Picking 23A -Purse Snatching 23B Disorderly Conduct 90C Peeping Tom 90H Burglary/B&E 220 -Shoplifting 23C -Theft from Building 23D Driving Under the Influence 90D Trespassing 90J Counterfeiting/Forgery 250 -Theft from Coin-Operated Machine 23E or Device Drunkenness 90E All Other Offenses 90Z -Theft from Motor Vehicle 23F Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of 290 -Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts or 23G Property Accessories Source: Association of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs (ASUCRP). Accessed on June 6, 2014. -All Other Larceny 23H Drug/Narcotic Offenses -Drug/Narcotic Violations 35A Motor Vehicle Theft 240 -Drug/Narcotic Equip. Violations 35B Pornography/Obscene Material 370 Embezzlement 270 Prostitution Offenses Extortion/Blackmail 210 -Prostitution 40A -Assisting or Promoting Prostitution 40B Fraud Offenses -Purchasing Prostitution 40C -False Pretenses/Swindle/ Confidence 26A Games -Credit Card/Automatic Teller Machine 26B Robbery 120 Fraud -Impersonation 26C -Welfare Fraud 26D Sex Offenses (Forcible) -Wire Fraud 26E -Forcible Rape 11A -Forcible Sodomy 11B -Sexual Assault with An Object 11C Gambling Offenses -Forcible Fondling 11D -Betting/Wagering 39A Sex Offenses (Non-Forcible) -Operating/Promoting/ Assisting 39B -Incest 36A Gambling -Gambling Equip.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Robbery Victimization
    What are the facts ■ Fifteen percent of all persons arrested in 1999 for robbery were under age 18. (Crime about robbery? in the United States 1999. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000) ■ In 1999, one robbery occurred every minute in the United ■ During 1999, the average value of property States. (Crime in the United States loss for a single robbery was $1,131, reflect- 1999. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of ing a 15-percent increase from the 1998 Investigation, 2000) figure. (Crime in the United States 1999. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investi- ■ The national loss due to robberies was an gation, 2000) estimated $463 million in 1999. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, how- ever, the impact of this violent crime on its victims cannot be measured in terms of mon- Resources for Information Robbery etary loss alone. (Crime in the United States and Assistance 1999. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000) National Center for Victims of Crime Victimization 1–800–FYI–CALL or 1–800–394–2255 ■ In 1999, 40 percent of all robberies were www.ncvc.org committed with firearms. (Crime in the United States 1999. Washington, DC: National Organization for Victim Assistance Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000) 1–800–TRY–NOVA or 1–800–879–6682 www.try-nova.org ■ In 1999, 74 percent of male victims of rob- bery and 42 percent of female victims of rob- Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center bery stated that the robber was a stranger. 1–800–627–6872 (Criminal Victimization in the United States TTY 1–877–712–9279 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • RECANTATIONS and the PERJURY SWORD Russell D
    861 COVEY PRODUCTION (DO NOT DELETE) 12/8/2016 1:32 PM RECANTATIONS AND THE PERJURY SWORD Russell D. Covey* Witness recantations pose a special problem in criminal law. Often, trial witnesses come forward, sometimes years after a criminal trial, and admit or allege that the incriminating testimony they gave at trial, and which contributed to the conviction of the defendant at that trial, was false or mistaken.1 Convicted inmates submit such recantations as new evidence of actual innocence to courts in hopes of winning their release or at least a new trial.2 Courts, however, are notoriously skeptical of recantation evidence, in part because of finality concerns, but also in part because judges tend to treat such statements as less reliable than the original, in- court testimony that was previously given.3 But here, courts have it exactly backward, largely because they misunderstand or underappreciate the extent to which the prosecutorial perjury sword places recanting witnesses in a legal dilemma. How many people, after all, are willing to admit publically that they erred or lied in the past and thereby risk a criminal perjury conviction and possible prison sentence simply to benefit some other person, possibly a complete stranger? In those relatively rare instances in which a witness does willingly recant * Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law. 1 See, e.g., Dobbert v. Wainwright, 468 U.S. 1231, 1232 (1984) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (demonstrating that witnesses sometimes recant testimony up to several years after a conviction); see Peter M. Agulnick, In Search of Truth: A Case for Expanding Perjury’s Recantation Defense, 100 W.
    [Show full text]
  • Vicarious Liability Under Criminal Law in India
    International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies :ISSN:2348-8212:Volume 3 Issue 3 213 VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER CRIMINAL LAW IN INDIA Ashwini Priya B.B.A.L.L.B, Chanakya National Law University, Patna, India [email protected] Abstract Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law. This paper discusses the doctrine of Vicarious Liability under Indian criminal law. Vicarious liability also known as joint responsibility liability is a legal theory of liability that empowers the court to hold a person liable for the acts of other. Under this doctrine individuals can be made vicariously liable for a criminal act of others even if they merely helped to further the crime in some way example aiding and abetting criminal activities. This often occurs in the context of civil law. In a criminal context, vicarious liability assigns guilt, or criminal liability, to a person for wrongful acts committed by someone else. This doctrine is considered to be fundamentally flawed under criminal law because it is based on “respondent superior” principles that are concerned with distributing loss caused by tortious act. The paper mainly focuses on the vicarious liability of the state in criminal offences, and also of corporations. Keywords-criminal law, intention, responsibility, vicarious liability Introduction Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency ; respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party .1 Vicarious liability also known as joint responsibility liability is a legal theory of liability that empowers the court to hold a person liable for the acts of other.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Assault Includes Both a Specific Intent to Commit a Battery, and a Battery That Is Otherwise Unprivileged Committed with Only General Intent
    QUESTION 5 Don has owned Don's Market in the central city for twelve years. He has been robbed and burglarized ten times in the past ten months. The police have never arrested anyone. At a neighborhood crime prevention meeting, apolice officer told Don of the state's new "shoot the burglar" law. That law reads: Any citizen may defend his or her place of residence against intrusion by a burglar, or other felon, by the use of deadly force. Don moved a cot and a hot plate into the back of the Market and began sleeping there, with a shotgun at the ready. After several weeks of waiting, one night Don heard noises. When he went to the door, he saw several young men running away. It then dawned on him that, even with the shotgun, he might be in a precarious position. He would likely only get one shot and any burglars would get the next ones. With this in mind, he loaded the shotgun and fastened it to the counter, facing the front door. He attached a string to the trigger so that the gun would fire when the door was opened. Next, thinking that when burglars enter it would be better if they damaged as little as possible, he unlocked the front door. He then went out the back window and down the block to sleep at his girlfriend's, where he had been staying for most of the past year. That same night a police officer, making his rounds, tried the door of the Market, found it open, poked his head in, and was severely wounded by the blast.
    [Show full text]
  • 61-2G-306 Renewal of License, Certification, Or Registration. (1) To
    Utah Code 61-2g-306 Renewal of license, certification, or registration. (1) To renew a license, certification, or registration, before the license, certification, or registration expires, the holder of the license, certification, or registration shall submit to the division in compliance with procedures set through the concurrence of the division and the board: (a) an application for renewal; (b) a fee established by the division and the board, in accordance with Section 63J-1-504; and (c) evidence in the form prescribed by the division of having completed the continuing education requirements for renewal specified in this chapter. (2) (a) A license, certification, or registration expires if it is not renewed on or before its expiration date. (b) For a period of 30 days after the expiration date, a license, certification, or registration may be reinstated upon: (i) payment of a renewal fee and a late fee determined through the concurrence of the division and the board; and (ii) satisfying the continuing education requirements specified in Section 61-2g-307. (c) After the 30-day period described in Subsection (2)(b), and until six months after the expiration date, a license, certification, or registration may be reinstated by: (i) paying a renewal fee and a reinstatement fee determined through the concurrence of the division and the board; and (ii) satisfying the continuing education requirements specified in Section 61-2g-307. (d) After the six-month period described in Subsection (2)(c), and until one year after the expiration date, a
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Blackmail As an Emerging Tactic 2016
    September 9 DIGITAL BLACKMAIL AS AN EMERGING TACTIC 2016 Digital Blackmail (DB) represents a severe and growing threat to individuals, small businesses, corporations, and government Examining entities. The rapid increase in the use of DB such as Strategies ransomware; the proliferation of variants and growth in their ease of use and acquisition by cybercriminals; weak defenses; Public and and the anonymous nature of the money trail will only increase Private Entities the scale of future attacks. Private sector, non-governmental organization (NGO), and government cybersecurity experts Can Pursue to were brought together by the Office of the Director of National Contain Such Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security to determine emerging tactics and countermeasures associated Attacks with the threat of DB. In this paper, DB is defined as illicitly acquiring or denying access to sensitive data for the purpose of affecting victims’ behaviors. Threats may be made of lost revenue, the release of intellectual property or sensitive personnel/client information, the destruction of critical data, or reputational damage. For clarity, this paper maps DB activities to traditional blackmail behaviors and explores methods and tools, exploits, protection measures, whether to pay or not pay the ransom, and law enforcement (LE) and government points of contact for incident response. The paper also examines the future of the DB threat. Digital Blackmail as an Emerging Tactic Team Members Name Organization Caitlin Bataillon FBI Lynn Choi-Brewer
    [Show full text]