Defendants can appeal their convictions either on legal grounds or on constitutional grounds. Provide three examples of legal grounds and four examples of constitutional grounds. Explain each of your examples. Remember to document your sources within-text citations in proper APA format (APA, 2001)
According to me legal grounds for appeal are those which arise out of reasons depending upon the trial. They could also arise from defect in the judgment. Legal grounds could be non acceptance of valid evidence, jury misconduct, are ineffective assistance of Counsel and so on. I will explain 3 legal grounds in detail further.
 However constitutional grounds are those that arise out of constitutional guarantee. If any of the constitutional guarantees are violated by the conviction than the defendant can appeal to a higher court on constitutional grounds. In the U.S.A every person has a right to appeal his conviction at least once.
It has been declared in Cohens v. Virginia that when the federal government bring an action against an individual it so far waives its exemption from suit that legal and equitable set-offs may be presented by the defendant, and when a state brings suit in a state court against an individual and gets judgment, an appeal in such action may be taken by the defendant to the Supreme court on constitutional points.
            The three legal grounds that I will be explaining are ineffective assistance of  Council, improperly admitted evidence and juror misconduct. Ineffective   assistance of counsel is due to incompetency of the defense lawyer.
            He can show incompetency due to various reasons like not showing up on the date of trial or not examining an important witness or even giving wrong information to the client and hence misleading him. It can also be due to not giving essential advice which is necessary to advise the client.
            Juror misconduct is an effective ground for appeal. This category will include    third party contacts media influence court officer influence intoxication juror misstatements of law discussions of parole prejudgment improper jury discussions racism and national origin discrimination jury agreements juror experimentation and investigation use of extra-record evidence use of religious source material separation of jurors alternate jurors in jury room sleeping jurors and incompetent jurors.
This ground was recently used in Smith v. Phillip (1962).
  The four constitutional grounds I will be explaining are relating to double jeopardy, jurisdiction, failure to follow due process of law and prohibition against self-incrimination.
The concept of double jeopardy finds its roots in the legal maxim nemo debet vis vexari which means that no man should be twice in peril for the same offence. Hence it is understood that a man cannot be convicted for the same crime with the same evidence twice. This according to me is a sound principle of natural justice. Hence a person cannot be convicted for murder and manslaughter but he can be tried for robbery and murder at the same time if he has committed both the crimes.  This ground was used in United States v. Ursery, (1996).
Another valid ground would be arguing that the lower court did not posses jurisdiction in the particular case and hence an appeal against conviction would lie. The impeachment of Senator Blount was challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction.

The due process of law must be followed in every case. If the principles of equity and natural justice are not complied with a person can appeal a conviction on this ground.
An example of this ground would be when a judge has any financial or personal interest in the subject matter of the case. According to me, ex-parte judgments would also be against the due process of life because it is natural justice that both parties to case be heard. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed                           
Every defense has a right to call upon witnesses for the trial. However no man can be asked to be a judge of his own cause. Hence if this rule of natural justice has been violated in the proceeding of any case the defendant may appeal on this particular ground

Smith v. Phillip 455 U.S 209 (1962).
United States v. Ursery,518 U.S 267 (1996).
Sergeant, Constitutional Law 376.

Identify eight demographic factors that affect a persons fear of crime. Explain how each of these factors affects ones fear of crime. Include proper in-text citations in APA format to support your answer. Use proper APA citations in your text to document your sources.
We all are to some level aware about the occurrence of crime in everyday life. It is but obvious for us to be threatened and afraid of being victimized by the law breakers. Somewhere in the back of the head, haunts a thought of being mobbed whilst walking in a dark lane alone at mid- night. Why people feel unsafe about their belongings in densely populated places. What do u think can be the reason for this Before explaining in detail the eight demographic reasons I believe most affect a persons fear of crime I would like to put light of some of the statistical data I came across during my research.
 In the 1993 General Social Survey, respondents were asked how safe they feel walking alone in their neighborhood at night. One in four Canadians 15 years of age or older answered that they did not feel safe. This figure represents four times as many women as men, and twice as many people aged 65 and over as those aged 15 to 24  (CCJS), March 1995. In 1997, Borooah and Carcach found that women in Britain were six times more likely than men to feel unsafe when walking alone at night.
A substantial proportion of the Canadian population can relate to having a fear of crime. The majority of Canadians report feeling very or somewhat safe when walking alone in their neighborhoods after dark, but there is a significant percentage of the population who do express some feelings that are the opposite to this. These expressions of insecurity come from a fear of crime and of being victimized. In the 1993 General Social Survey, respondents were asked how safe they feel walking alone in their neighborhood at night. One in four Canadians 15 years of age or older answered that they did not feel safe. This figure represents four times as many women as men, and twice as many people aged 65 and over as those aged 15 to 24 (CCJS), March 1995. In 1997, Borooah and Carcach found that women in Britain were six times more likely than men to feel unsafe when walking alone at night (p. 645).
Characteristics exist in people that prompt them to fear. In many cases, the level of fear does not correlate with the risk of victimization. Some of these attributes play a more substantial role than others in determining ones level of fear.
Gender is one the strongest factors that affect fear. It is indeed the women that feel more insecure than the men about being victimised by a crime. May be it is due to demeaning tags like being called the weaker sex that attributes to it. However, they are victimized less then men.
Womens fear comes mostly from their vulnerability to sexual aggression women are ten times more likely to be sexually assaulted than are men (Crowell  Burgess, 1996). This fear of sexual assault and rape transposes itself onto other types of crimes (Ferraro, 1996). Women do not simply become aware of this fear one day, nor are they born with it women are socialized into thinking that they are vulnerable to attack if they, for example, go out alone at night. Parents, peers and media emphasize and re-enforce this fear, and women are expected to succumb to it.
There are various other reasons that trigger fear amongst women. Most of them will concur with the various factors I will enumerate further.
Age is also a powerful predictor of fear. But, unlike gender, with age the fear varies from crime to crime. When it comes to age, it is customary to assume that the elderly are the most afraid, and for many crimes, this assumption holds true, such as in mugging cases and break and enters. When it comes to crimes like rape, sexual assault and stranger attacks, it has been found that younger people tend to be more fearful (Evans, 1995). Elderly people have a high fear level in relation to many crimes because they feel vulnerable. This vulnerability stems from the physical and social limitations that elderly people have which renders them unable to defend themselves or to seek support and help.
When it comes to fear of crime victimization, 18 of those aged 18 to 34, 21 of those 35 to 54, and 26 of those 55 and over express a great or fair amount of fear (Angus Reid, 1997). In examining the trends in criminal victimization, the rates of victimization for those over 65 are too small to be meaningful (CCJS, December 1994). Elderly people are not the specific targets of most crimes, but their level of fear exceeds their risk of victimization.
Past experience with crime
Certain crimes generate more fear for victims than others. Being a victim of a robbery, for example, generates a high level of fear because it contains elements that cause a greater amount of fear to be instilled in its victims. Robbery usually involves a stranger, weapons, physical assaults and the loss of a fair amount of money (Skogan  Klecka, 1997). Burglary, because of its invasion of privacy and substantial amount of loss, generates a high level of fear. The victims who express the most fear of walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark are victims of sexual assault, followed by victims of robbery, break and enter, assault, vandalism, motor vehicle theft, household theft and personal theft (CCJS, March 1995).
Fear of crime also varies according to where one lives. People who live in cities tend to hold higher levels of fear because cities and other urban areas tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas. In 1993, in relation to household victimizations alone, the rates were 222 per 1,000 urban households and 133 per 1,000 rural households (CCJS, 1996, p. 175). Furthermore, twice as many people (60 versus 30) in large cities as compared to small towns fear walking alone at night (Horton, 1988,)
Ethnicity and culture
Studies have found that fear levels vary according to ethnic background. While white respondents tend to show the least amount of fear, the question of who has the most fear has not been unanimously agreed upon. A 1994 British Crime Survey found that in relation to crimes of harassment, burglary, rape and mugging, the Asian group expressed the most fear. The Black group showed the next highest fear level in relation to these crimes, while the White group showed the least amount of fear. This survey also found that for the crime of theft from car, the Black group showed a slightly higher level of fear than the Asian group, and the White group once again had the lowest level of fear. In relation to simply feeling unsafe, the Asian group was the highest, and the White group had only a slightly higher level of fear than the Black group (Hough, 1995).
Mostly in third world countries which had been imperialised by foreign rulers somewhere in their past you will find people who have more fear of crime. They do not trust in foreigners as their past experience with them does not permit them to. If we take the example of India, I remember studying that India has been ruled by foreigners by more than 300 years and was robbed of all her wealth and money until it was left to a land full  of internal rivalry pulled down to poverty. I feel it is only natural that an Indian would feel insecure while trusting a foreigner with his financial matter. So in one has a past where his people have been exploited, he would have a similar fear in his mind.
Income level
People from low level incomes will naturally feel lesser fear of crimes like robbery, theft or fraud. As little there is to loose, the lesser there is to worry. On the other hand people from high income groups would fear these crimes more than the lower income groups. However I believe income levels would not make a difference if the crime dreaded was murder or manslaughter. Every mans life is precious to him and why shouldnt it be.
Low education level
I can personally say that there were a lot less crimes I had to worry about till I started studying law. With knowledge of crime comes fear of it. Needless to say, a person who hasnt read the daily newspaper will be less alert about a serial killer in the neighbourhood compared to the person who has no knowledge of it.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS), March 1995, p. 1.
Angus Reid, 1997, p. 51.
Horton, 1988, p. 26.

Name the five main assumptions of the positivist school of thought. Explain each of these five assumptions. What are some of the problems of the positivist theories Remember to document your sources with in-text citations in proper APA format (APA, 2001).
Positivism rejects the concept of the individual and free will and instead embraces the idea of enduring evolutionary traits that define a basic criminal personality, and which can be assessed using scientific methods. (S. Qadri, 1965)

Positivists focused their theory on cause and effect relationships, they assumed human behavior is determined and not a matter of freewill.
Criminals are fundamentally different from non criminals.
Social scientist should be value neutral in their work. They should not treat the criminals as criminals but as people who are disturbed.
Crime is not affected by a single factor. There are various factors that affect a crime. And each of these factors must be studied.
Society is based on consensus and not on a social contract.(Introduction to Criminal Justice)

According to me the problems of the positivist theory are as follows.

The theory assumed individual physique as something fixed and not prone to changes. It did not take into consideration the morbid process affecting the human physique.
The data did not cover sufficient numbers and it could not be regarded as truly representative of the relevant groups.
The theory is generalized and does not take into consideration exceptions. For example, a positivist theory that suggests crime is caused by poverty over predicts because not all poor people commit crime.
The theory expects criminologist to be neutral valued. However in the real world such a thing is hard to achieve. You cannot expect a person working on a serial killer to not be disgusted at the brutality of the murderer. Ever person working in the field got to have an opinion about such things and you cannot separate their thinking from them
Positivists generally assume that humans only adapt or react-but humans also create. How else could we explain new social arrangements or ways of thinking A belief in determinism allows positivists to present an absolute situation uncomplicated by the ability to choose.

The Study of criminology by S. Qadri, page 36
Introduction to Criminal Justice

Define mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause. Explain when an officer is able to legally stop a suspect. Can a law enforcement officer make a lawful arrest based on reasonable suspicion Why or why not If not, what is required Explain. Use proper APA citations in your text to document your sources

The apprehension or imagination of the existence of something wrong based only on inclusive or slight evidence or possible even no evidence.

Reasonable suspicion
A particularized and objective basis supported by specific and articulate facts, for suspecting a person of criminal activity.

Probable cause
A reasonable ground to suspect a person has committed or is committing a crime or that a place contains specific items connected with a crime. Under the 4th  Amendment of the U.S Constitution, probable cause which amounts to more than a bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction, must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued.

Probable suspicion
A particularized and objective basis not supported by specific and articulate facts but merely on the ground of doubt, for suspecting a person of criminal activity.

An officer is able to stop a suspect when he has a valid warrant or a probable cause that the person has committed a crime. An officer may be allowed to legally stop a suspect based on reasonable grounds .However, in case of making a legal arrest a valid warrant or probable cause is essential.
            Probable cause may not be established simply by showing that the officer who made the challenged arrest or search subjectively believed he had grounds for his action


Post a Comment