Response to Question 1: Orenthal James (O.
J.) Simpson
Why
Juries arrived at Different Verdicts
The juries arrived at
different decisions in two cases because of the evidence substance. Criminality
is determined by two principles of criminality: the mens rea and actus
reus (The Federalist
Society, 2017). The actus reus seeks to question whether the actual crime was committed and
whether it could be linked to the accused individual in the first place. The mens
rea, on the other hand, seeks
to question the motive in which the crime was committed. One of the essential
requirements is of crime is that one must have gone beyond planning or
preparation to committing it. Meanwhile, the onus of proof lays upon the juries to establish that an actus
reus occurred. The difference
between preparation and the actual attempt is largely a qualitative one — it
involves gauging and comparing the nature and form of the act with respect to
the complete offense and could examine terms of relative proximity such as
time, location and acts within the limits of the accused.
The
first case in which Orenthal James was acquitted qualified the motive but
failed to satisfy actus reus. In
particular, the question of gloves that could not fit the accused was the main
challenging test (Grubbs, 2016). When trying a criminal for murder, the jury needs
to unanimously find the accused guilty
beyond the reasonable doubt for a
conviction to occur (Mathis, 2016). However, this burden
of proof is not always available in all the cases. Such circumstances
require the use of the preponderance of
the evidence, which comprises substantial facts but which cannot be
qualified beyond reasonable doubt and does not require unanimous decision by
the jury. Although this evidence cannot qualify criminal conviction, they can
be used in the civil conviction, as evidenced in the second case.
Another Case Similar to Orenthal James
Another case related to Orenthal James is United States v.
Copeland. This case challenges the legal maxim of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, terming is as unquantifiable. Its argument invests in the
concept of preponderance of the evidence,
instead. The case citation is United
States v.
Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The
link to access the case is https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2360984/united-states-v-copeland/
References
Grubbs, J. (2016). What does O.J. Simpson's civil trial verdict mean? "Liable" does not mean “guilty”. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/articles/152048-what-does-oj-simpsons-civil-trial-verdict-mean-liable-does-not-mean-guilty
Mathis,
M. (2016). The OJ Simpson trial was faked
as were the murders. Retrieved from http://mileswmathis.com/oj.pdf
The Federalist Society (2017). Morally innocent, legally guilty: the case for mens rea reform. Retrieved from https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/morally-innocent-legally-guilty-the-case-for-mens-rea-reform
United States v.
Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275(E.D.N.Y. 2005). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2360984/united-states-v-copeland/
The
incident of Rebecca Sandwick, a young girl who committed suicide by jumping
from an abandoned concrete building in Florida in 2013 is one of the
contentious cases regarding parental liability (Siegel 2014). The preliminary investigation revealed that the suicide had been
caused by cyber bullying perpetrated by two of her classmates. The two girls
were charged with aggravated stalking. However, they were acquitted and the
blames directed on their parents. The question of a parent is liable for the
criminal acts of a child lend itself as debatable issues in the criminal law.
Why Parents are Responsible
It is
plausible to argue that parents should be held responsible. This position
hinges on two reasons. Firstly, the most plausible reason is that the mental
development process, including the ability to make informed choices, is
influenced by age. Children, by virtue of their tender age, cannot make
informed rational decisions. In this regard, minors are expected to behave
differently from adults because of the stages of development they are
predisposed. Research studies have revealed various cognitive functions such as
reasoning,
problem-solving, decision-making, memory, and category learning is low in
children. Evidently, it would be wrong to treat minors as adults. Based on the mens rea and actus reus perspectives, the minors can commit criminal acts, but
they cannot be qualified as criminals because of obscure criminal intent
attributable to their inability to make rational choices (Black. 2016). Therefore, there would be no justice is
sentencing children as adults.
Secondly,
parents should be held liable for the acts of their children because they are
their caretakers. This caretaking relationship is particularly justified under
three theoretical circumstances: agency theory, family possession doctrine, and
permissive doctrine. The agency theory recognizes that children engage in
criminal behaviors by following the directions of their parents or because of
lack of direction. The family possession doctrine recognizes that parents who
own different possessions such as guns and cars will be responsible if these
possessions are used by children to commit crimes. Essentially, parents are
expected to exercise due care by ensuring that harmful properties are kept away
from their children. Finally, the permissive use doctrine recognizes that
parents will be responsible for the consented use of certain possessions such
as vehicles driven by third parties, should they be involved in legal
violations (LegalMatch, 2019). Relating this position to Rebecca Sandwick
creates the allowance to implicate the parents for the acts. In particular,
parents should be blamed for giving the girls the phone, which they used to
bully Rebecca. They also bear the blame of failing to provide direction on the
safe use of the devices.
Florida Law
Florida’s
current laws on parental liability are on point. As documented by NOLO (2018),
one of the examples of these laws is contained in Florida Statutes section
322.09, which touches on driving. This provision holds parents responsible for
minors found driving. Another provision is Florida Statutes section 741.24,
which addresses the issue of vandalism (NOLO, 2018). The provision holds parent
financially responsible for vandalism committed by their children. These two
outstanding provisions are effective since they can be extended to other cases
in which the intentional or malicious actions act of children results in damage
to property or injuries.
Reference
Black. J. (2016). Understanding the effectiveness of incarceration on
juvenile offending through a systematic review and meta-analysis: do the
"get tough" policies work?.Doctoral dissertation. Nova
Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Arts, Humanities
and Social Sciences – Department of Justice and Human Services. (2)http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cahss_jhs_etd/2.
LegalMatch (2019). Parental liability for the acts of their children. Retrieved from https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/parental-liability-for-the-acts-of-children.html
NOLO (2018). Parental responsibility laws in Florida. Retrieved from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/florida-parental-responsibility-laws.html
Siegel,
N. (2014). Should parents be legally
responsible for children's serious crimes? Retrieved from
https://www.npr.org/2014/12/16/371264533/should-parents-be-legally-responsible-for-childrens-serious-crimes
Response
to Question 3:
Property
and Personal Torts
Tort Story
Bernadette
is a recent winner in “I’m a Celebrity Let Me In” reality TV show in which
selected members of the public are made to live together in one house and
subjected to continuous video surveillance that captures the ways they
undertake different household chores and deal with life challenges. Ever since
she won the award, she has been attending different events with the intention
of boosting her media profile, hoping to launch a career as a TV presenter. As
a way of gaining media popularity, she has been engaged in filming a music
video to launch a career. The filmed video features adult content,
characterized by sexist dance routines and revealing music. A still
photographer was also allowed in the filming process, commissioned to take
pictures that would also be featured in content marketing, advertisements and
album covers. The process of filming and shooting the still photographs
proceeded and concluded well, culminating to the release of a single that had a
good market reception and sales, and which later topped the charts a few weeks
later. These outcomes of vents served the intentions of earning Bernadette a
lot of publicity within the media. However, some of the photographs of her that
were taken during the filming found their way to high street fashion chain,
where they were featured as imprints on t-shirts. Most of the images featured
her provocative poses that could only be linked to video shootings session.
Moreover, the images appearing on the t-shirts feature her name under them.
Meanwhile, her agents have been contacted over a promising offer that is
interested in employing Bernadette a host of a children TV show. Bernadette
becomes horrified that the t-shirts featuring his provocative photographs could
send a wrong impression about her and cause the production company to decide
against hiring her. Indeed, her fears are confirmed when the deal falls
through. The potential employer turned down the deal citing they could not hire
a porn star.
Bernadette
walks to the office of the photographer. He holds the camera and throws it to
the flow, crashing it. The photographer, annoyed by the incident, grabs
Bernadette and throws a blow that land on her nose, which causes her to bleed.
Bernadette friends hear the screams, dash out of the car in the parking and
join to rescue Bernadette. They beat up the photographer to stupor. As they
leave, one of the friends takes a laptop from the desk. Three days later,
photographer publishes all Bernadette photos and videos at a pornographic site
in revenge, labeling her as a whore.
Response to Question 4: A Scientist Who
Contributed to Forensic Science
The
fingerprint forensics has undergone a series of developments following
contributions from different scientists. Although the discovery of fingerprints
as the marker of individual uniqueness is attributed to different works by
Herschel, Galton and Henride, the introduction of the concept to forensic
science is attributed to Juan Vucetich (NLM, 2018). Juan Vucetich was born in
1858 in Dalmacian Adriatic archipelago (Onin, 2019). His journey in forensic
science began 1888 when began working as an investigator at the police
department in Buenos Aires. He was tasked with the role of organizing the
services for anthropometric identification. At this time, he invested his
efforts in fingerprint concepts, building on the theory advanced by Herschel,
Galton and Henride.
Building
on the theory, Juan Vucetich envisioned the potential of using fingerprints to
identify people and how this was going to be important in resolving many
different criminal cases. He endeavored to develop tools that would make
fingerprints easy to use to identify people. His notable development was
dactiloscopic table. This tool comprised of a marble board containing ink, a
zinc plate that would be used to ink the fingers, and a rolling board in which
the fingers would be taken. This concept came to be popularly referred to as
icnophalangometria (Onin, 2019). This contribution became a forerunner of
modern forensic, serving as proof that individuals could be identified through
different mechanisms. Scientists across the globe have intensified their
research striving to perfect the intelligence systems and curb, as well as
detect crimes. The new approaches contrast with the past in the sense that the
new computerized and robotized systems can conduct surveillance and provide
information in real time and sound alarms. In the past, ideas pertaining to the
development of such technologies sounded fiction. However, there are now
various manifestations of how it is easy to use technologies to identify people,
detect crimes, and collect evidence. For example, there are emerging
developments in body intelligence involving the use of artificial ‘noses’ that
detect explosives, the identity of people and detect materials possessed by
individuals. As if not enough, the smart camera technology that identifies
people at a distance just from the way they walk and talk, to add to trace
laboratory technologies that analyses sweat, body odor and thermal plume human
skin flakes for every person, are the common, trending developments.
No comments:
Post a Comment