Discussion Chapter 4: The Elements Of Crime And Years Impris

Discussion Chapter 4 The Elements Of Crimeten Years Imprisonment For

Discussion Chapter 4: The Elements of Crime Ten Years Imprisonment for an Accident? “Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns.” In Dean v. U.S., the defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment under a federal sentencing enhancement for an accidental discharge of his firearm during a bank robbery. The prosecution presented evidence at trial indicating that the defendant went into the bank wearing a mask and carrying a loaded firearm. The defendant told everyone in the bank to “get down,” and then went behind the tellers’ station and began grabbing money with his left hand. The gun in his right hand discharged. The defendant seemed surprised by the discharge, cursed, and ran out of the bank. No one was injured or hurt during the robbery. The defendant thereafter admitted he committed the robbery. The US Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s sentencing, in spite of the fact that there was no evidence of intent to discharge the firearm. The Court based its holding on the plain meaning of the statute requiring a minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment when a firearm is discharged during a robbery. The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), does not expressly state a criminal intent requirement. The Court further held that a presumption of criminal intent was not required. As the Court stated, “[i]t is unusual to impose criminal punishment for the consequences of purely accidental conduct. But it is not unusual to punish individuals for the unintended consequences of their unlawful acts” (Dean v. U.S., 129 S. Ct. 1849). Do you think it is ethical to sentence Dean to ten years’ imprisonment for his accidental conduct in this case? Why or why not? Exercise: Chapter 4: The Elements of Crime. Answer the following questions and make sure your response is 100 words or more for each. 1. As Jordan is driving to school, she takes her eyes off the road for a moment and rummages through her purse for her phone. This causes her to run a stop sign. Jordan is thereafter pulled over by law enforcement and issued a traffic ticket. What is Jordan’s criminal intent in this case? Is Jordan criminally responsible for running the stop sign? Why or why not? 2. Read Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. In Morissette, the defendant was convicted of unlawful conversion of federal property for gathering and selling spent bomb casings dropped during US Air Force practice maneuvers. The statute required “knowing” conversion of the property, and the defendant claimed he believed the property was abandoned. Did the US Supreme Court uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: to an external site. 3. Read State v. Crosby, 154 P.3d. In Crosby, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter of a dependent person by neglect. The defendant’s mother died of “sepsis” and was brought to the hospital covered with feces and bedsores. The defendant was her mother’s caregiver. The jury was instructed that the defendant possessed the mental state of “recklessness” under the statute if she disregarded a substantial risk of harm or circumstances. The jury asked the judge if “circumstances” included the bedsores or just death. He responded that the risk could be more than just death and left it up to the jury to decide. Did the Supreme Court of Oregon uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: State+v.+Crosby+S53295&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5Links to an external site. 4. Read State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St. 3d. In Horner, the defendant pleaded no contest to aggravated robbery. The defendant’s pre-plea indictment did not contain a mens rea element for aggravated robbery, just the mens rea for theft. The defendant moved to dismiss the no contest plea, based on the fact that the indictment was defective for lacking the mens rea element. Did the Ohio Supreme Court find the indictment defective? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: Case Study: Chapter 4: The Elements of Crime. Please make sure that your response is 100 words or more for each question/statement. 5. The defendant and his wife argued. She raised a knife above her head and stated, “Don’t make me use this.” The defendant took the knife away and thereafter stabbed the victim forty-three times in the head and chest with it. The defendant wants to make an imperfect self-defense argument. Will you accept or reject the case? Read State v. Perez, 840 P.2d. The case is available at this link: to an external site. 6. The defendants crossed a police tape and trespassed on a medical clinic’s private property while protesting abortion. The defendants want to make arguments in support of necessity, defense of others, and duress. The basis of the defendants’ claims is that they are protecting the lives of unborn children. Will you accept or reject the case? Read Allison v. Birmingham, 580 So.2d. The case is available at this link: to an external site. 7. The defendant, a police officer, shot the victim twice after being summoned to the victim’s home by his wife. The victim was intoxicated and armed with two small steak knives. The defendant shot the victim subsequent to a somewhat lengthy encounter during which the victim lunged at him with the knives. The victim claimed he was putting the knives down or about to put the knives down. The victim is suing the defendant for damages based on use of excessive force in arrest or apprehension. Will you accept or reject the case? Read Roy v. Inhabitants of Lewiston, 42 F.3d. The case is available at this link: to an external site. 8. The defendant, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, distributes marijuana to qualified patients under California’s Compassionate Use Act, which allows the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. The US government wants to stop this distribution under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits possession and use of marijuana under any circumstances. The defendant wants to continue distribution under a claim of medical necessity. Will you accept or reject the case? Read U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. The case is available at this link: to an external site. 9. What is the purpose of putting Mitchell on trial rather than delaying the trial for mental incompetency? Is this purpose ethical? Exercise: Chapter 5: Criminal Defenses. Answer the following questions and make sure your response is 100 words or more for each. 1. Carol is on trial for battery, a general intent crime. Carol puts on a defense that proves her conduct was accidental, not intentional. Is this an affirmative defense? Why or why not? 2. Read State v. Burkhart, 565 S.E.2d. In Burkhart, the defendant was convicted of three counts of murder. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense. The jury instruction given during the defendant’s trial stated that the prosecution had the burden of disproving self-defense. However, the instruction did not state that the prosecution’s burden of disproving self-defense was beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the Supreme Court of South Carolina uphold the defendant’s conviction for the murders? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: to an external site. 3. Read Hoagland v. State, 240 P.3d. In Hoagland, the defendant wanted to assert a necessity defense to the crime of driving while under the influence. The Nevada Legislature had never addressed or mentioned a necessity defense. Did the Supreme Court of Nevada allow the defendant to present the necessity defense? The case is available at this link: Hoagland+v.+State&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2009. Case Study: Chapter 5: Criminal Defenses. Please make sure that your response is 100 words or more for each question/statement. 4. The defendant’s vehicle matched the description of a vehicle seen in the vicinity of a burglary before, during the burglary, and after the burglary. The defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was an accomplice to the burglary. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of accomplice act, accomplice intent, or both? Read Collins v. State, 438 So. 2d. The case is available at this link: to an external site. 5. The defendants, foster parents, were found guilty as accomplices to the felony murder of their two-year-old foster daughter. Although both defendants testified that the victim died from injuries experienced after a fall from a swing, medical experts reported that the victim’s injuries were inconsistent with that testimony and appeared to be the result of child abuse. The jury convicted the defendants as accomplices to felony murder after a jury instruction stating that an omission to act could constitute the criminal act element for accomplice liability when there is a duty to act, and parents have a legal duty to come to the aid of their children. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of omission to act, statutory interpretation, or both? Read State v. Jackson, 137 Wn. 2d. The case is available at this link: to an external site. 6. The defendant, an electrical contracting company, was found guilty of violating OSHA regulations that led to an employee’s death. The victim, an apprentice in training, touched a live electrical wire and died from electrocution. The OSHA statute in question required “willful” conduct on behalf of the company. The jury instruction on willful stated that a company acted willfully or knowingly if individual employees of that company acted knowingly. The evidence indicated that some employees knew or were aware of live wiring in the vicinity of the accident. The defendant appealed and claimed that the jury instruction should have stated that a company acted willfully or knowingly if individual employees of that company acted knowingly and had a duty to report that knowledge to the company. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of criminal intent, vicarious liability, or both? Read U.S. v. L.E. Meyers Co., 562 F.3d. The case is available at this link: to an external site. 7. The defendant, an individual, was convicted of both first-degree murder and being an accessory after the fact to that murder. The trial court did not instruct the jury that these crimes were mutually exclusive and that only one verdict should be entered. The defendant appeals, claiming that he should not be convicted of both. Does this case illustrate the legal concept of the criminal elements required for accessory after the fact, the criminal elements required for murder, or both? Read State v. Melvin, No. 382PA09 (North Carolina 2010). The case is available at this link: Chapter 7 of the course textbook examines theories of cognitive development during adolescence and later adulthood. For this assignment, refer to the textbook and two peer-reviewed journal articles to compare and contrast the theories and models of two cognitive theorists with respect these stages of human development. In your paper must respond to the following: 1) Briefly summarize the main elements of each theorist’s analysis of cognitive development during the transition from adolescence to early adulthood. 2) Compare and contrast the two approaches to this critical and difficult stage of development, illustrating in what ways, and with respect to what issues, each approach provides insights and/or exhibits shortcomings. 3) Compare and contrast cognitive development during adolescence versus early adulthood, evaluating whether and to what extent one or the other stage is more or less amenable to one of the two frameworks examined. 4) Be sure to integrate terms and research associated with major cognitive theories into your analysis such as egocentrism, inductive reasoning, or fluid/crystallized intelligence. Your paper should be 1600 words in length and cite and integrate at least two peer-reviewed journal articles.

Paper For Above instruction

The analysis of criminal responsibility in cases involving accidental conduct, as discussed in Chapter 4, raises profound ethical questions about the fairness and morality of sentencing individuals for unintended actions. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dean v. U.S. exemplifies this dilemma. The case involved a defendant who accidentally discharged his firearm during a bank robbery, resulting in a ten-year mandatory sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The Court upheld the sentence despite the absence of proof of intent, emphasizing that the statutory language did not require a mens rea or criminal intent. The Court’s stance reflects a broader legal principle that certain statutory elements focus on the act itself rather than the actor’s mental state. The ethical debate centers on whether punishing accidental conduct aligns with notions of justice and moral responsibility.

From an ethical standpoint, sentencing Dean raises concerns because it arguably punishes unintentional behavior without proof of criminal intent, which conflicts with the principle of culpability that underpins criminal justice systems. Punishing accidental conduct may undermine the fairness of justice, as it potentially penalizes individuals who did not mean harm. The doctrine of mens rea—"guilty mind"—is traditionally foundational in criminal law, ensuring individuals are only held liable when their mental state meets a certain culpability threshold. The case presents a tension between strict statutory interpretation that emphasizes the act and a moral obligation to avoid punishing innocent or blameless conduct.

Turning to the case of Jordan, her brief distraction while rummaging for her phone resulted in a violation of traffic law. Her criminal intent can be classified as negligence or recklessness, depending on the jurisdiction’s standards. Legally, negligence involves a failure to exercise reasonable care, leading to unintended harm, suggesting that Jordan’s responsibility stems from a deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. Since she took her eyes off the road momentarily, her actions likely fall under criminal negligence rather than intentional misconduct. Therefore, Jordan is generally responsible for running the stop sign, as her conduct exhibited a reckless disregard for safety, fulfilling the mental component necessary for criminal liability.

In Morissette v. U.S., the Court examined whether the government needed to prove a specific mental state—"knowing"—to establish unlawful conversion of federal property. The defendant believed the bomb casings were abandoned, thus believed his conduct was lawful. The Supreme Court upheld Morissette’s conviction, emphasizing that the statute required "knowing" conversion and that belief in abandonment did not negate guilt unless the defendant truly believed the property was abandoned. The case illustrates the importance of mental state in establishing criminal liability, underscoring that "knowing" conduct involves awareness of the nature of one's actions.

The case of Crosby highlights issues related to mental state and juror interpretation. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter by neglect, with the jury instructed that recklessness as defined by the statute involved disregarding substantial risks. The jury asked whether "circumstances" included only death or the broader conditions such as bedsores. The judge’s ambiguous response left the interpretation to the jury. The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the jury was correctly instructed on recklessness, and the ambiguity was resolved by the judge’s clarification. This case underscores the importance of precise jury instructions in correctly conveying the mental state required for criminal liability.

In Horner’s case, the issue centers on the sufficiency of legal pleadings, specifically whether the indictment contained the necessary mens rea for aggravated robbery. The Ohio Supreme Court found the indictment defective because it lacked explicit mens rea language specific to aggravated robbery, which could lead to ambiguity and potential violation of due process. This highlights the critical role of accurate and comprehensive charging documents that specify the mental elements, ensuring the defendant’s constitutional rights are protected and that the prosecution bears proper evidence burden.

Adding to these, the question of whether to accept or reject cases involving self-defense or necessity hinges on the assessment of mental states and moral justification. For instance, the case of the defendant stabbing a victim after a knife threat involves imperfect self-defense. Here, the defense argues that the defendant believed he was acting in necessary self-defense, but this belief may not be justified or reasonable. As a private attorney, one might reject such a case if evidence suggests the defendant’s actions exceeded what could be considered reasonable self-defense, especially given the number of stab wounds inflicted.

Similarly, the protesters trespassing to protect unborn children raise ethical and legal dilemmas rooted in statutory interpretation and moral justification. If the defendants can convincingly argue that their actions were necessary to prevent greater harm, such as the termination of unborn life, their defense might be considered valid under necessity or defense of others. However, given the infringement on private property and potential violation of laws, one might reject the case if statutory law does not recognize such defenses explicitly, thus risking the defendants’ conviction.

The case involving police use of force during an encounter with an armed, intoxicated victim is another complex scenario. If the victim was lunging at officers with knives, and they responded with deadly force, the key question is whether the force was reasonable under the circumstances. Given the victim’s aggressive behavior and threats, a reasonable officer might have perceived an imminent danger, justifying the shooting. As a defense attorney, one may accept the case if the evidence supports the claim that force was proportional to the threat; otherwise, rejection would be warranted if excessive force is evident.

In the instance of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, the federal government’s pursuit to shut down distribution under the Controlled Substances Act raises issues of medical necessity. If the defendant can establish that the marijuana distribution was essential for medicinal purposes, and that federal law conflicts with state law, the case may warrant acceptance. Conversely, if the claim of necessity is weak or unsubstantiated, rejection might be appropriate. As an attorney, careful evaluation of scientific and legal standards governing medical marijuana is crucial.

The purpose of prosecuting Mitchell rather than delaying for incompetency relates to the fundamental principle of ensuring justice and accountability. Prosecuting a competent individual aligns with respecting the rule of law, while delaying might serve only to evade individual responsibility. Ethically, pursuing a trial even when mental health issues are present can be justified if there is sufficient evidence to believe the defendant can cooperate and participate meaningfully. Protecting societal interests and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process generally support timely trials, provided the defendant’s rights are safeguarded.

Regarding criminal defenses, in Carol’s case for battery, asserting that her conduct was accidental is not an affirmative defense because it negates intent rather than providing a new legal reason for the act. It is a denial of the essential element of intent, not an exception recognized as an affirmative defense like self-defense or duress, which admit lawful justification or excuse. Successfully proving accident can lead to acquittal, but it does not constitute an affirmative defense under criminal law principles.

The case of Burkhart on self-defense illustrates procedural importance. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the conviction because the jury instructions failed to specify that the prosecution’s burden of disproving self-defense was beyond a reasonable doubt—a violation of constitutional standards. Proper jury instructions must clearly articulate that the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to safeguard the defendant’s constitutional rights and ensure a fair trial.

In Hoag