CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Q1.
A group of young adults took part in fraudulent activities that led them to commit several crimes. The first crime committed by the four young adults is larceny and shoplifting theft. This is evident on their incident of appearing through back doors and sneaking into buildings to steal 50 MacBook computers worth $1000 each. Their theft capacity is as well illustrated when they sneak into a stationary truck and apply their gifted tactics to get away with money worth $2000. At individual level, Randy commits attempted murder, based on how he grabbed Larry and started punching him on the face, reason being, Larry was trying to present himself to the police for the safety of himself and the other three young adults as well. In relation to this, Larry committed murder; he took out his box cutter and slushed at Randy’s neck, an incident that damaged his carotid artery. He bled to death. Vinney is another young adult criminal charged with murder. He kicked John and damaged his head to the extend the he died two weeks later.
The charges on Vinny and Larry are more severe than Harvey and Randy, this is based on the guidelines postulated by Drum, H (2016). Unfortunately, Randy passed on. Since Larry and Vinny committed murder, their criminal punishment is life sentence unless paroled with reason that their natural behaviours have been rectified and changed. Randy passed on, thus his criminal changes are undefined whereas Harvey is imprisoned for 10 years unless pardoned. Since Randy was the genesis of his own demise, there are defences for Larry on the ground that his case on murder was accidental and not deliberate because he was on the process of acquiring self-defence from Randy’s physical fury. I do not find any defence for Randy, Vinny, and Harvey.
Q2.
Suzy, a 21-year old student in the fourth year at state University committed drug abuse. Her predicament remains an absolute fact that she is a drug addict since she tested positive for Rohypnol. However, her case has room for defence because she took a legal initiative of calling upon the attention of the police so as to terminate Mark’s intention of sexual assault. Suzy is charged for drug abuse, thus is eligible for 1-year imprisonment with a fine of $1,000 unless pardoned on academic grounds. She can be defended on the ground that, she did not commit drug abuse deliberately.
Mark, a 15-years old young man is a criminal of three cases. First, he committed drug abuse to himself as well as to his artificial friend, Suzy. Secondly, he committed sexual assault to Suzy. Thirdly, he committed attempted murder. His crime on sexual assault is based on the fact that he secretly added Rohypnol in Suzy’s drink with intention of tranquilizing and cornering her for sex. On an equal measure, his act of adding Rohypnol into Suzy’s beer can be linked to attempted murder if the offended was extremely allergic to Rohypnol. He is subject to child imprisonment since he is 15 years of age. I do not find any defence for Mark. All of his actions concerning the case were deliberate.
Q3.
Bill and Becky are victims of adultery, a criminal offense that is committed based on the fact that they had sex outside marriage. The fact that Becky had frequent work off with a reason of helping a friend is comprehensive that she spent her time with Bill when Sarah was at work on day time. This implies that, Bill and Beck had committed adultery severally. Bill faces divorce punishment and life imprisonment as well. Similarly, Becky is legible for life imprisonment and divorce, though the latter is undefined because we are not informed whether Becky is married or not. I do not find any defence for Bill and Becky, since their adulterous criminal mistakes were deliberate and did not happen once. I find limited defence for Sara, based on the footage from the shop that she had purchased the gun as a surprise present for her husband, Bill, and that she did not intent to kill the deceased.
Q4.
As Joe’s lawyer, I find that he has several issues that can easily disarm my ability to defend him on judicial grounds. First, I realize that the defendant is ignorant. He does not accept directives and advice from his service providers and would easily decide to make decisions based on his incapacitated mentality. This is evident when he defiles his psychiatrist’s advice of attending group therapy. More so, Joe’s ability to continue with illegal business after state lockdown weakens my lawful jurisdictions of defending his criminal commitments. Finally, the fact that Joe agrees solely with police that he denatured Paula, makes it hard to justify that the defendant did not commit murder. “Good I am glad I finally got that no good health officer Paula, she deserved it.”
As Joe’s lawyer, my sole defence strategy is the fact that he is schizophrenic. Based on this, I could turn all allegations directed on my defendant and maintain that his cognitive sense is incapacitated and that they might have taken advantage of his schizophrenic state to dupe him into such a criminal blackmail.
References
Drum, H (2016). Lead Americans Real Criminal Element. Mother Jones.