It is not possible to adequately study the history of diversity in the United States without reflecting upon the treatment of both the Native American and the Asian population. Explain public policy toward each of these groups that reflected the disdain of some Americans and the United States government toward them.

/in /by

Narrative essay

For your Unit 3 Complete assignment, write a narrative essay (minimum 1500 words) in which you address and discuss the questions and statements listed below. Use at least four scholarly sources and remember to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the READ and ATTEND sections in your essay. Cite your sources in APA format.

It is not possible to adequately study the history of diversity in the United States without reflecting upon the treatment of both the Native American and the Asian population. Explain public policy toward each of these groups that reflected the disdain of some Americans and the United States government toward them.

textbook is: McNamara, R. H., & Burns, R. G. (2021). Multiculturalism, crime, and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Write a memo to your supervisor outlining how you plan to supervise Mr. McMahon. Outline how often you plan to have contact with him, what form of contact you will have, and how frequently you will administer drug tests. What other interventions or resources will you allocate to this case?

/in /by

Probation and parole

You have returned from your academy training, and you have just been assigned your first case. John McMahon is a 25-year-old man who was recently convicted of possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to 2 years in prison, suspended on the condition that he serves 2 years on probation. Special conditions of probation include payment of a $500 fine, completion of any drug treatment program directed by the probation officer, and random drug testing as directed by the probation officer. During your initial interview with Mr. McMahon, you learn that he has a number of friends who are involved in the criminal justice system, and he has a history of alcohol and cocaine dependence that began when he was 17 years old. His drug abuse resulted in his failure to complete high school (he dropped out during his senior year), and he has never had any form of drug treatment. Mr. McMahon also reported that his father is an abusive alcoholic who has on occasion been physically abusive to his mother. To Mr. McMahon’s credit, he has maintained a job working as a laborer in the construction industry, where he works about 30 hours per week. He scores out as a moderate risk offender using the in-house risk assessment instrument. With this in mind, address the following in a Word document that is 750-900 words in length:
Create a document outlining the conditions of probation that Mr. McMahon must follow that includes standard conditions as well as the special conditions imposed by the court. Be sure to include identifying information as well as the sentencing information on this form.

Write a memo to your supervisor outlining how you plan to supervise Mr. McMahon. Outline how often you plan to have contact with him, what form of contact you will have (telephone, face-to-face in the office, face-to-face in the community at his job site or residence, etc.), and how frequently you will administer drug tests. What other interventions or resources will you allocate to this case?

State the exact wording of the offense was convicted of. List all of Metzger’s acts and any other facts relevant to deciding whether he violated the ordinance. State the test the court used to decide whether the ordinance was void for vagueness. According to the majority, why was the ordinance vague? According to the dissent, why was the ordinance clear enough to pass the void-for-vagueness test? In your opinion, was the statute clear to a reasonable person?

/in /by

Void-for-vagueness doctrine

LO4 – To know the criteria for identifying vague laws and to understand and appreciate their constitutional significance and consequences.
LO4 – To know the criteria for identifying vague laws and to understand and appreciate their constitutional significance and consequences.

A law is void for vagueness (the principle that statutes violate due process if they don’t define a crime and its punishment clearly enough for ordinary people to know what is lawful) if it forbids conduct and prescribes punishments in terms so uncertain that ordinary people have to guess at their meaning before they choose a course of action. (Lanzetta v. New Jersey 1939, 453) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that vague laws violate the guarantees of two provisions in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the federal government shall not deny any individual life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state government shall deny any person life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

How do vague laws violate the due process guarantees? The reasoning behind the void-for- vagueness doctrine goes like this:
1. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution ban both federal and state governments from taking any person’s “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
2. Criminal punishment deprives individuals of life (capital punishment), liberty (imprisonment), or property (fines).
3. Therefore, failure to warn private persons of what the law forbids and/or allowing officials the chance to define arbitrarily what the law forbids denies individuals their life, liberty, and/or property without due process of law.

The Aims of the Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
The void-for-vagueness doctrine takes aim at two evils similar to those of the ban on ex post facto laws. First, void laws fail to give fair warning to private individuals as to what the law prohibits. Second, they allow arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement. A famous case from the 1930s gangster days, Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1939), still widely cited and relied on today, is an excellent example of both the application of the doctrine and its purposes. The story begins with a challenge to this New Jersey statute:

Any person not engaged in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of any gang consisting of two or more persons, who has been convicted at least three times of being a disorderly person, or who has been convicted of any crime, in this or in any other State, is declared to be a gangster. . . . Every violation is punishable by fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 20 years, or both. (452)

The challengers attacking the statute for vagueness were Ignatius Lanzetta, Michael Falcone, and Louie Del Rossi. On June 12, 16, 19, and 24, 1936, the three challengers, “not being engaged in any lawful occupation”; “known to be members of a gang, consisting of two or more persons”; and “having been convicted of a crime in the State of Pennsylvania” were “declared to be gangsters.”
The trial court threw out their challenge that the law was void for vagueness; they were tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for “not more than ten years and not less than five years, at hard labor.” The New Jersey intermediate appellate court and the New Jersey Supreme Court also threw out their challenges. But they finally prevailed when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the New Jersey statute was void for vagueness. Why?

No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. (453)

The phrase “consisting of two or more persons” is all that purports to define “gang.” The meanings of that word indicated in dictionaries and in historical and sociological writings are numerous and varied. Nor is the meaning derivable from the common law, for neither in that field nor anywhere in the language of the law is there definition of the word. Our attention has not been called to, and we are unable to find, any other statute attempting to make it criminal to be a member of a “gang.” (454–55)

Notice that the answer to the question, “What’s fair notice (in vague laws, isn’t whether the defendant knows there’s a law against the act but whether an ordinary, reasonable person would know that the act is a crime) ?” in vague laws isn’t subjective; that is, it’s not what a particular defendant actually knows about the law. For example, the Court didn’t ask what Lanzetta and his cohorts knew about the gangster ordinance: Were they aware it existed?

Did they get advice about what it meant? Did their life experiences inform them that their behavior was criminal (Batey 1997, 4)?
That’s because, according to the courts, the proper question, “What’s fair notice in void-for- vagueness law?” is objective; namely, “Would an ordinary, reasonable person know that what he was doing was criminal?” Perhaps the best definition of objective fair warning is

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White’s blunt phrase: “If any fool would know that a particular category of conduct would be within the reach of the statute, if there is an unmistakable core that a reasonable person would know is forbidden by the law, the enactment is not unconstitutional . . .” (Kolender v. Lawson 1983, 370–71).

Despite the importance of giving fair notice to individuals, the U.S. Supreme Court (1983) decided that providing “minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement” trumps notice to private individuals as the primary aim of the void-for-vagueness doctrine (Kolender v. Lawson 1983, 357). According to the Court:

Where the legislature fails to provide such minimal guidelines, a criminal statute may permit a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections. (358) And, quoting from an old case (U.S. v. Reese 1875), the Court in Lawson elaborated further on the choice to give priority to controlling arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement: It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large. This would, to some extent, substitute the judicial for the legislative department of government. (221)

Giving priority to controlling law enforcement is more realistic than giving fair notice to hypothetical reasonable, ordinary people. Police officers and prosecutors are more likely to read what’s in the criminal statutes and know about the cases that interpret them. So it makes sense for courts to ask whether statutes clearly indicate to ordinary police officers and prosecutors what the law prohibits. Inquiries that seem “wrongheaded” when they’re directed at guaranteeing fair notice to ordinary noncriminal justice experts become reasonable when they’re examined to decide whether they’re clear enough to limit arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement (Batey 1997, 6–7).

Defining Vagueness
Whether the emphasis is on notice to individuals or control of officials, the void-for-vagueness doctrine can never cure the uncertainty present in all laws. Why? “Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Grayned v. City of Rockford 1972, 110). It’s not just the natural uncertainty of words that creates problems. It’s also because the variety of human behavior and the limits of human imagination make it impossible to predict all the variations that might arise under the statutes. So, courts allow considerable leeway in the degree of certainty required to pass the two prongs of fair warning and avoidance of arbitrary law enforcement.

Case
In State v. Metzger (1982), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that a Lincoln, Nebraska, city ordinance that made it a crime to “commit any indecent, immodest, or filthy act” was void for vagueness.
Furthermore, challengers face a strong presumption that statutes are constitutional. The Ohio Supreme Court summarized the heavy burden of proof challengers have to carry: The challenger must show that upon examining the statute, an individual of ordinary intelligence would not understand what he is required to do under the law.


Questions
1. State the exact wording of the offense Douglas Metzger was convicted of.

2. List all of Metzger’s acts and any other facts relevant to deciding whether he violated the ordinance.
3. State the test the court used to decide whether the ordinance was void for vagueness.
4. According to the majority, why was the ordinance vague?
5. According to the dissent, why was the ordinance clear enough to pass the void-for-vagueness test?
6. In your opinion, was the statute clear to a reasonable person? Back up your answer with the facts and arguments in the excerpt and information from the void-for-vagueness discussion in the text.

Develop a project plan to stand up a brand new cybersecurity program in the form of a 10-13 page White Paper, referencing the course material, industry best practices, and NIST guidance.

/in /by

Week 8 Program White Paper

Assignment:

You are the first Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) for your organization, and on your first day, you realize there are no impactful cybersecurity practices established or implemented, and decide to submit a white paper to the CEO, calling for action. Develop a project plan to stand up a brand new cybersecurity program in the form of a 10-13 page White Paper, referencing the course material, industry best practices, and NIST guidance.

Should we, as a Constitutional society, authorize the police in Texas greater freedoms in making warrantless arrests than listed in Chapter 14 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure? Should police be required to obtain warrants for all instances instead of the authorization outlined in Chapter 14 TX CCP warrantless arrests? OR should there be fewer restrictions as outlined in Chapter 14 Code of Criminal Procedure?

/in /by

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

Should we, as a Constitutional society, authorize the police in Texas greater freedoms in making warrantless arrests than listed in Chapter 14 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure?

Should police be required to obtain warrants for all instances instead of the authorization outlined in Chapter 14 TX CCP warrantless arrests? OR should there be fewer restrictions as outlined in Chapter 14 Code of Criminal Procedure?

Defend your position on the topic. Be sure to address future ramifications of the decision you make. Think of what impact your decision may have, hypothetically. Address at least one possible issue that may occur from your decision

Research/Review the case of Detective Russell Poole and the LAPD. Identify and discuss the ethical systems represented by the actions of the detective.

/in /by

Ethical systems

Research/Review the case of Detective Russell Poole and the LAPD. Identify and discuss the ethical systems represented by the actions of the detective.

In your opinion did Howard Marks commit a crime? If “yes” why? If “no” why? At what point in the film could a prosecutor argue a crime was committed? In your opinion will Howard Marks be found guilty of any crime?

/in /by

CJA 431 DBW1

After watching the Minority Report video:

Answer the following questions below:

1. In your opinion did Howard Marks commit a crime? If “yes” why? If “no” why?
2. At what point in the film could a prosecutor argue a crime was committed?
3. In your opinion will Howard Marks be found guilty of any crime?

There have been many theories espoused to explain this decline. Write a 2-page paper examining the various explanations given by criminal justice pundits.

/in /by

The Decline of Crime in the 21st Century

There has been a steady decline in crime in the 21st Century. There have been many theories espoused to explain this decline. Write a 2-page paper examining the various explanations given by criminal justice pundits. Make your conclusion at the end. Reference (4) articles

What is the “reasonable prudent person” standard? What standard of care might a landowner owe a trespasser? What is negligence per se? Why might this be important for a plaintiff to establish? What is res ipsa loquitur? Why was the concept introduced to torts law? What are the differences between a licensee and an invitee with regard to torts law? What is comparative negligence? What are the different types of comparative negligence? What is contributory negligence? Does the defense seem appropriate to you? Why?

/in /by

Negligence Worksheet

Instructions: Provide substantive answers to the following questions.

1. Negligence is made up of four basic elements. The first element, duty, includes a related concept of “standard of care”. Does that standard of care change depending on the defendant involved, and if so, how?

2. What is the “reasonable prudent person” standard?

3. What standard of care might a landowner owe a trespasser?

4. What is negligence per se? Why might this be important for a plaintiff to establish?

5. What is res ipsa loquitur? Why was the concept introduced to torts law?

6. Look up the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., Ct. of App. of N.Y., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928). To the legal community, Palsgraf is very important and famous case. What is the primary concept that Palsgraf helped establish, and why is it important to negligence law?

7. Let us say that someone negligently causes another person to slip in a puddle of water. The person who slipped received not physical or mental injury from the fall; they simply slipped. Why might this be important for the concept of damages if the person who slipped sued the person that created the negligent risk?

8. What are the differences between a licensee and an invitee with regard to torts law?

9. What is comparative negligence? What are the different types of comparative negligence?

10. What is contributory negligence? Does the defense seem appropriate to you? Why?

 

What other evidence (other than testimony) was significant in establishing or challenging a prima facie case of murder? Why was this significant? Describe why one argument was more persuasive than the other. Discuss what in particular may have persuaded the jury one way or the other based on the closing argument. What, if any, outside factors (media, public opinion, etc.) affected the trial and/or the outcome of the case and how did they do so? (What book?)

/in /by

Assignment 3

You should write a flowing prose paper (NOT 1, 2, 3 etc..). Your paper should have headings (Using APA 7th edition format style) that reflect each of the sections below (i.e. Introduction, opening statements, Establishing/Challenging a Prima Facie Case for Murder, evidence, closing arguments, outside factors, concluding thoughts). Under each heading you will address each of the questions asked in flowing prose (NOT 1, 2, 3, etc..).

Aaron Hernandez was a professional athlete, having played for the New England Patriots. In 2013, he was accused of murdering a mutual friend, Odin Lloyd. In 2015, he was convicted of the Lloyd murder.

You may conduct your own research in answering the questions below, but also consider the following two links for support:

Aaron Hernandez

Aaron Hernandez Part 2

After reviewing the information provided, submit a paper using the format below and answering the following questions supported by specific authority from the links provided.

A. Introduction
-Give a brief overview of the facts of the case, including an explanation of the specific statute(s) under which the defendant was charged and/or convicted and the ultimate outcome of the case
-Give a brief explanation of the burden of proof, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution.
-Give a brief explanation of why the Hernandez trial was so important to the prosecution of crimes in the United States.

B. Opening Statements
-Which attorney was most persuasive and why?
-Which attorney gave the jury more significant facts to consider and what were those facts?

C. Establishing/Challenging a Prima Facie Case for Murder
-Name one key witness who helped establish a prima facie case of homicide for the prosecution or challenged a prima facie case for the defense, and explain why he or she helped or hurt the prosecution of the case.

D. Evidence
-What other evidence (other than testimony) was significant in establishing or challenging a prima facie case of murder? Why was this significant?

E. Closing Arguments
-Describe why one argument was more persuasive than the other.
-Discuss what in particular may have persuaded the jury one way or the other based on the closing argument.

F. Outside Factors
-What, if any, outside factors (media, public opinion, etc.) affected the trial and/or the outcome of the case and how did they do so? (What book?)

G. Concluding thoughts
-Discuss why this case is important to the study of criminal justice and criminal prosecution, and how reading primary documentation about it has changed your own perspective on the case.

Format Requirements

-Paper must be double spaced, 11 or 12 pt font and 1” margins all around.
-All APA 7th edition format requirements must be followed (cover page, in text citations, reference page).

You must have resources to support your thoughts/opinions/information. These must be cited both in text as well as at the end of the document. Your paper should not contain direct quotes, sourced material must be paraphrased.