DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability Fordham Law Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 1 1964 The Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability Emilio S. Binavince Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Emilio S. Binavince, The Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability, 33 Fordham L. Rev. 1 (1964). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol33/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability Cover Page Footnote The research for this article was in part carried out during my term as Research Fellow of the Alexander- von-Humbolt-Stiftung at the Rechtsphilosophisches Seminar, University of Bonn, Germany in 1962-1963. I must express my appreciation to the Stiftung for sponsoring this and other works in Germany, and to Professor Hans Welzel, Director of the Rechtsphilosophisches Seminar for his friendly assistance on my work on comparative criminal law. * Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of Puerto Rico. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol33/iss1/1 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1964-1965 VOLUME XXXIII © 1965 by Fordham University Pres EDITORIAL BOARD JOHN J. OrrzmIGE, JR. Editor-in-Chief PA-L R. ADES JoHN M. SAVAE Articles Editor Articles Editor STEWART N. BOXER DAVID R. TREACY JoHn H. WxiNsoN Case Notes Editor Case Notes Editor Case Notes Editor BRxAx D. FrrzGERALD LAwRENCEF N. RosEN Comments Editor Comments Editor WALTER J. MCCARROLL Managing Editor MEMBERS OF THE BOARD JoN C. AniONE ROBERT A. FoRuzzo RicnARD L. KANDELL AGNEs E. ALBAN DANIEL W. FRflTIAN JoHN M. KENNEDY JOHN F. BANNON MICHAEL D. GROSS JOHN A. LANZETTA JOEL A. BRANDT EDWARD F. HAYES, III MAuRICE M. McDERMOTT JOSEPH H. DouGLAs FRANK M. HEADLEY, JR. MATmIAS E. MONF MAuREEN R. DRISCoLL RUDOLv HRADECKY ALBERT J. SATrL R, JR. ROBERT A. FERRIS DENIS R. HuREY JoAN SIDOR JoRDAN J. FIsKE PATUCIA M. HYNES WIxLM P. VERON P=uip R. FoRLENzA HENRY P. WASSERSTEIN ANN V. SuLLIvAN Business Secretary EDITORIAL AND GENERAL OFFICES Lincoln Square, New York, N.Y. 10023 Published four times a year-October, December, March, and May. Member, National Conference of Law Reviews. Printed by the Heffernan Press Inc., Worcester, Massachusetts. Second class postage paid at Worcester, Mass. SUBSCRnmTON PRICE $5.00, SINGLE IssuE $2.00. Make checks payable to FoRDIIAA LAW REvIzw. Subscription renewed automatically unless notified to contrary. TABLE OF LEADING ARTICLES-TITLES Cr]MTM TE Or LC0RPOM7 IOX FOR A NEW YORK CLOSE Conrommom: A Fonm. Robert A. Kessler .................................................................. 541 CoNGRESSIONAL Pov._ To REQumE D=NsE E.P-,Drrurxrs. Gerald W. Davis .... 39 DEmELOPINT OF Scon OF REvIwE i JuDicL Rnvmr or ADmmNmSmTiE AcToIO: MANDA2IUS Am REmw oF DIscm ,ION.Harold Weintraub ................. 359 FREDOM or THE PR.s: Croswell's Case. Morris D. Forhosch ...................... 415 Homca E UhWrz THE PRoposm NEw YoRx Pn. Lw. Robert M. Byrn .......... 173 PAALLEL JummsDicTon: IF THE CouRT or Crxms C.,a, Wny- Nor Tim An~m=nT-nm Bo..Ds? Gilbert A. Cvneo, Eldon H. Crowell .................................. 137 THE AcT or ST.ATE-FoREGN DEzCsos CIT. IN THE Sabbatino C-SE: A RrurAL AiN AEmoRum OF LAW. William Harvey Reeves ....................... 599 THE ETImL FoUNvATIoN CRrINmAL LABIrT. Emilio S. Binavince ............ 1 THE NEW STocm OPTION: PROBLMIS OF THE S-AU,_ COM A . V. Henry Roths- child, 2nd ................................................................. 393 THE RIGmr TO IVEGTIGTEAND NwE YoRE'S "Stop AN, Fnisr" L vr. John A. Ronayne 211 THE SnE oF CoRoPRAE CoNTROL. David C. Bayne, SJ. ............................ 533 TABLE OF LEADING ARTICLES-AUTHORS BATYHF, DAvm C., SJ., The Sale of Corporate Control .............................. 593 BInAviNcr, Emo S., The Ethical Foundation of Criminal Liability .............. 1 BYRN, ROB RT M., Homicde Under the Proposed New Yorh Penal Law ........... 173 CuNEo, G=BrERT A., AND CRoWmm, Er.LDo H., Parallel Jurisdiction: If the Court of Claims Can, Why Not the Administrative Boards? ............................ 137 DAVIs, Gr.LuD W., Congressional Power to Require Defense Expenditures .......... 39 FoRxoscH, MoRms D., Freedom of the Press: CRosLL's CAsr ................... 415 KEssLE-, ROBR A., Certificate of Incorporation for a New Yorh Close Corporation: A Form ................................................................... $41 RERvEs, Wrxix MitaRy, The Act of State-ForeignDecisions Cited in The S.%. -INo Case: A Rebuttal and Memorandum of Law .................................. 59 RONiATHE, jom A., The Right to Investigate and New Yorh's "Stop and Frish" Law 211 Romcmm, V. HmN , 2ND, The New Stoch Option: Problems of the Smaller Company 393 WEnmAUB, H.%oim, Development of Scope of Review in Judicial Review of Admdis- trative Action: Mandamus and Review of Discretion .......................... 359 TABLE OF BOOKS REVIEWED ARozsoN: ST TUs A. KSPm n =HEHIm HR CVm Smivcn. Jeromne S. Ruberstein 351 BiSxnnD & Saao.oN: Bo.UWmAN's EsTAE LNAGEMENT AND AccomTnTI. George J. M cCormacl ............................... ... .......................... 746 FALK: THE ROLE oF DomIsTIc Co r n nm L ,rm-Ao: OIRDE. Howard J. Taubenfeld ................................................................ 533 FEERICE: FRoM F.M.nG ILNDs: THE SToRy OF PrsmErn. SuCcn_ SIO., Edward L. Wright ................................................................. 745 iv FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33 HANSLOWE: PROCEDURES AND PoLICIES oF THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. Jerome S. Rubenstein ................................................ 125 MANNING: FEDERAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAw. Jerome S. Rubenstein .............. 351 SHEMEL & KRA SiLOVSxY: TIS BUSINESS OF Music. Jerome S. Rubenstein .......... 536 TAuBmAN: FINANCING A THEATRICAL PRODUCTION. Jerome S. Rubenstein ............ 536 TONDEL: DISARMAMENT: BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTH HA IMARSKJOLD FORU. Charles E. Rice .................................... 354 YOKLEY: THE LAW OF SUBDrvSIONS. Robert E. Beck .............................. 129 COMMENTS A SOLUTION TO THE DEBT-EQuITY PROBLEM ...................................... 239 CONSTRUCTIONAL DEVIcEs AND THE NEw YORK RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES .......... 259 MEXICAN DIVORCE--A SuRvEY.. ................................................... 449 THE BINDING EFFECT OF A NONADVERSARY STATE COURT DECREE IN A FEDERAL TAX DETERM INATION ............................................................ 705 THE STATUS OF AN INVESTMENT SECURITY HOLDER UNDER ARTICLE 8 ................ 466 TORTIOUS ACT AS A BASIS FOR JURISDICTION IN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES ............... 671 TRIAL BY NEWSPAPER .......................................................... 61 1964 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 7 OF THE CLAYTON ACT TO HORI- ZONTAL ACQUISITIONS ....................................................... 274 1964-65] INDEX TO VOLUME XXXIII INDEX DIGEST ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE CONFESSIONS See International Law New York Procedure for Determining the Voluntariness of a Confezsion D,- ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES clared Unconstitutional (Case Note) See Government Contracts; Judicial Re- view CONFLICT OF INTEREST ADMINISTRATIVE LAV Federal Conflict of Intercst Law.; A Ordinance Providing for Entry by Build- Book Review 351 ing Inspector for Purposes of Obtain- ing Evidence for Criminal Prosecution CONFLICT OF LAWS Held Invalid (Case Note) 297 See also Domestic Relations ANTITRUST Claim Arising from Foreign Gambling Contract Held Enforceable in New 1964 Developments in the Application of York (Case Note) 493 Section 7 of the Clayton Act to Hori- zontal Acquisitions (Comment) 274 CONSTITUTIONAL LAV -Introduction 274 See Civil Rights; -Effect of the Acquisition 276 Confessions; Criminal Procedure; -Existing Competition 276 Freedom of Religion; Freedom of the -Potential Competition 281 Press; Full Faith and Credit; Search -Market Determination 287 and Seizure; Self-Incrimination; Sepa- -Continental Can 2S9 ration of Powers -Alcoa 292 From Failing Hands: The Story of -Conclusion 295 Presidential Succesion, A Book Reiew ARBITRATION State Tax on Liquor Imports from Abroad Held Unconstitutional (Case See Domestic Relations Note) 3O ATTORNEYS CONTRACTS See Unauthorized Practice of Law See Conflict of Laws; Warranty See also Criminal Procedure Right of Attorney Defending Indigent CORPORATIONS Prisoner to Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment Upheld (Case Note) See also Taxation Certificate of Incorporation for a New 93 York Close Corporation: A Form 541 CERTIORARI Fraud on Court Approving Suit Settle- See Judicial Review ment Not Chargeable to Nonpartid- pating Director (Case Note) 97 CITY PLANNING The Sale of Corporate Control 583 -The Premium and the Sale 584 The Law of Subdivisions, A Book Re- -The Nature of the Sale 585 view 129 -The Definitions of Appropriator and CIVIL RIGHTS Controleur 585 -The Power Bases and Genezes of the See also Attorney; Criminal Procedure; Custody 5S6 Freedom of the Press; Labor Law -Total Ownership Appropriation 587 De Facto Segregation-Courts May Not -Fifty-plus Per Cent Ownership 587 Substitute Their Own Judgment for -lere-Incumbency Control 587 the Judgment of Commissioner of -The A.T. & T. Type of Mere In- Education Where
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Charging Language
    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory
    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
    [Show full text]
  • Mandatory Minimum Penalties and Statutory Relief Mechanisms
    Chapter 2 HISTORY OF MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES AND STATUTORY RELIEF MECHANISMS A. INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a detailed historical account of the development and evolution of federal mandatory minimum penalties. It then describes the development of the two statutory mechanisms for obtaining relief from mandatory minimum penalties. B. MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES IN THE EARLY REPUBLIC Congress has used mandatory minimum penalties since it enacted the first federal penal laws in the late 18th century. Mandatory minimum penalties have always been prescribed for a core set of serious offenses, such as murder and treason, and also have been enacted to address immediate problems and exigencies. The Constitution authorizes Congress to establish criminal offenses and to set the punishments for those offenses,17 but there were no federal crimes when the First Congress convened in New York in March 1789.18 Congress created the first comprehensive series of federal offenses with the passage of the 1790 Crimes Act, which specified 23 federal crimes.19 Seven of the offenses in the 1790 Crimes Act carried a mandatory death penalty: treason, murder, three offenses relating to piracy, forgery of a public security of the United States, and the rescue of a person convicted of a capital crime.20 One of the piracy offenses specified four different forms of criminal conduct, arguably increasing to 10 the number of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.21 Treason, 17 See U.S. Const. art. I, §8 (enumerating powers to “provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”); U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R
    [Vol. 102 CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS AT COMMON LAW Edwin R. Keedy t GENERAL PRINCIPLES Much has been written on the law of attempts to commit crimes 1 and much more will be written for this is one of the most interesting and difficult problems of the criminal law.2 In many discussions of criminal attempts decisions dealing with common law attempts, stat- utory attempts and aggravated assaults, such as assaults with intent to murder or to rob, are grouped indiscriminately. Since the defini- tions of statutory attempts frequently differ from the common law concepts,8 and since the meanings of assault differ widely,4 it is be- "Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania. 1. See Beale, Criminal Attempts, 16 HARv. L. REv. 491 (1903); Hoyles, The Essentials of Crime, 46 CAN. L.J. 393, 404 (1910) ; Cook, Act, Intention and Motive in the Criminal Law, 26 YALE L.J. 645 (1917) ; Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 HARv. L. REv. 821 (1928) ; Tulin, The Role of Penalties in the Criminal Law, 37 YALE L.J. 1048 (1928) ; Arnold, Criminal Attempts-The Rise and Fall of an Abstraction, 40 YALE L.J. 53 (1930); Curran, Criminal and Non-Criminal Attempts, 19 GEo. L.J. 185, 316 (1931); Strahorn, The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, 78 U. OF PA. L. Rtv. 962 (1930); Derby, Criminal Attempt-A Discussion of Some New York Cases, 9 N.Y.U.L.Q. REv. 464 (1932); Turner, Attempts to Commit Crimes, 5 CA=. L.J. 230 (1934) ; Skilton, The Mental Element in a Criminal Attempt, 3 U.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 37 (1995-1996) Issue 1 Article 10 October 1995 Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial Alan L. Adlestein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Alan L. Adlestein, Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial, 37 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 199 (1995), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol37/iss1/10 Copyright c 1995 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr CONFLICT OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WITH LESSER OFFENSES AT TRIAL ALAN L. ADLESTEIN I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 200 II. THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LESSER OFFENSES-DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONFLICT ........ 206 A. Prelude: The Problem of JurisdictionalLabels ..... 206 B. The JurisdictionalLabel and the CriminalStatute of Limitations ................ 207 C. The JurisdictionalLabel and the Lesser Offense .... 209 D. Challenges to the Jurisdictional Label-In re Winship, Keeble v. United States, and United States v. Wild ..................... 211 E. Lesser Offenses and the Supreme Court's Capital Cases- Beck v. Alabama, Spaziano v. Florida, and Schad v. Arizona ........................... 217 1. Beck v. Alabama-LegislativePreclusion of Lesser Offenses ................................ 217 2. Spaziano v. Florida-Does the Due Process Clause Require Waivability? ....................... 222 3. Schad v. Arizona-The Single Non-Capital Option ....................... 228 F. The Conflict Illustrated in the Federal Circuits and the States ....................... 230 1. The Conflict in the Federal Circuits ........... 232 2. The Conflict in the States .................. 234 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Sleuthing Tips! How This Mystery Works: This Mystery Is Similar to the Board Game CLUE
    Murder n’ Mayhem - Sleuthing Tips! How this mystery works: This mystery is similar to the board game CLUE. (Think of this voyage as playing a live game of CLUE!) You will use CLUE Cards and evidence to solve the crime. There are three different CLUE Cards: Suspect, Weapon and Motive. Plus, evidence items also represent the one who is guilty and will help narrow down your list of suspects. Gathering Information: You are looking for the character that is a suspect, has a motive and has the weapon. Some characters are not a suspect; others are, but only have a weapon or a motive. Once you find the character with all 3 of these you will solve the crime. Interrogation Techniques: In your efforts to solve this crime there are many questions you will want to ask the suspects. Here are some examples: How did you know the deceased? Do you have any evidence that relates to the crime? Are you a suspect in the murder? Why would you want the victim dead? Do you own a weapon? (Note: These last three questions relate to the CLUE Cards.) Evidence at the Crime Scene: Unfortunately, some of the guests disturbed the crime scene and took pieces of evidence. Those who have evidence are able to use these items however they wish; bribery, blackmail, barter, etc… If you have a piece of evidence you cannot lie. You must share it. It is up to you though if you are sharing it for free, doing an exchange, or charging a fee. The number of evidence items that are relevant to the murder will be revealed during the voyage.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin County Mysteries Part 2
    Martin County Mysteries, Mayhem, and More . PART II Part II of this series starts in the Tenhassen woods during the 1860s and involves a fierce fight. From the Tenhassen woods we move on to Sherburn and witness a daring bank robbery. Following the Sherburn bank robbery is an account of a cold blooded murder in Martin County, and finally, an attempted robbery of the former Red Owl store in Fairmont involving gunfire at the police who were giving chase. The review of local legends couldn’t be complete without including the famed “Carver- Tuttle Fight of 1862.” Legend has it that Sam Carver, a huge, stern character with a booming voice decided to settle in the vicinity of “Tuttle’s Grove” in 1860. He was soon met by Calvin Tuttle who made it very clear that this was his land and that Carver should move on. Later, Tuttle and his two sons returned to Carver’s camp again telling him to leave. Tuttle’s threats continued and, finally, in 1862, he made a vow that if Carver could beat him in a fair fight, Tuttle and his family would depart leaving his entire “empire” to Carver. Consequently, the battle was staged in a clearing in the Tenhassen woods that resembled a natural amphitheater. Both men agreed to a fair fight, however, as Carver raised his arms to remove his jacket Tuttle abruptly smashed him in the face. Carver, having his arms caught in his jacket sleeves, finally freed one arm and punched Tuttle in the groin, From that point on, nothing was barred and the fight continued with fists, fingernails, and teeth used as weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Certified for Partial Publication*
    Filed 7/23/19 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ---- THE PEOPLE, C086476 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17F4235) v. HEAVEN LEANN TURNER et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, Adam B. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Heaven Leann Turner. James Bisnow, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, Michael Rafferty. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Angelo S. Edralin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I B through F and II of the Discussion. 1 Mary H. was attacked and robbed at home in the early hours of the morning. A jury found defendants Heaven Leann Turner and Michael Benjamin Rafferty guilty of first degree robbery and found Turner guilty of mayhem as well. Defendants respectively raise several arguments on appeal. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject Turner’s instructional error claims. Turner argues the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte that the infliction of great bodily injury is a required element to prove mayhem and that, like the disfigurement theory of mayhem, permanent injury is required to prove mayhem under the “slit of the lip” theory.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF-Download
    Order of the 1st Chamber of the Second Senate of 1 March 2004 – 2 BvR 1570/03 – in the proceedings on the constitutional complaint of the Turkish national A. ... against a) the order of the Higher Administrative Court (Oberverwaltungsgericht) for the Land North Rhine-Westphalia of 19 August 2003 – 18 B 1503/03 –, b) the order of Düsseldorf Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) of 15 July 2003 – 24 L 1977/03 – and application to issue an injunction ... RULING: The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision. The application to issue an injunction is therewith concluded. GROUNDS: I. 1. a) The applicant objects to his expulsion to Turkey. 1 He was born in Germany in 1983 and grew up here, where his parents and siblings 2 also live. He has had a permanent residence permit since December 1999. The applicant has come to the notice of the police several times since 2000. He was 3 sentenced most recently on 22 July 2002 in respect of joint robbery by blackmail in concurrence of offences with threat, robbery by blackmail in concurrence of offences with bodily harm, threat in concurrence of offences with deprivation of liberty and co- ercion, coercion in concurrence of offences with threat, threat in two cases in concur- rence of offences with theft resembling robbery, coercion and theft, as well as in re- spect of blackmail relating to the two latter convictions, to combined youth custody of three years and six months. In consequence of the latter conviction, the immigration authority expelled him by or- 4 der of 9 May 2003, ordered the immediate enforcement of this expulsion and an- nounced to him that he would be expelled from custody to Turkey.
    [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]
  • 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]