Criminology

Should children be allowed to sue their parents, say for bad parenting
The family is the basic social unit in any given society. Lately there have been rising cases of children who sue their parents over various issues. In my opinion, I do not find this to be a good way forward as far as safeguarding the family is concerned. Allowing such cases to go on may mean that the institution of family is going to be destroyed and is likely to lose value in future (Schmalleger, F. 25-29). However, children may be allowed to sue their parents in cases of extreme abuse and mistreatment, especially a small child has undergone sever mistreatment in the hands of his or her parents and has not been given essential needs as required at this age specifically. However, it should only be allowed in gross cases on parts of negligence and recklessness. There should be clearly spelt out provisions on circumstances when children can be allowed to sue their parents. Leaving such a law open will see children misuse this law and sue parents over small issues like diet and pocket money. Thus in light of this, I am of the opinion that such a law ought to be scrapped off as it is no good to the society. It serves to split the society rather that promote harmony among people. Many families are likely to be broken if such a law is to be put in place. Incase of bad parenting, the court should look at the facts and find out if the parent was negligent or heshe was overcome by circumstances beyond himher (Schmalleger, F. 42-47).

What age is too young to have sex or get married with an older partner
The age of consent is commonly referred to in the legal field to the age at which a minor can lawfully consent into having sexual intercourse with a partner who is older than them. A minor is said to have consent upon attaining a certain age. This age varies with laws of different countries (Schmalleger, F. 55-57). However, in majority of countries the age of consent is said to be 18 years and above. The reason why many countries have established the age of consent is to prevent minors from being taken advantage of. Having sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of consent amounts to an offence that is punishable by law. In the same manner getting married to a person who has not attained the age of consent is an offence. It is argued that a person who has not attained the age of majority is incapable of making some vital decisions like engaging in sexual intercourse and marriage. It is for this reason that this law must always be observed to prevent cases of abuse among the minors. If a person is found to have married a person below the age of consent then the court assumes that the older partner took advantage of the minor and is thus held guilty. The age of consent thus safeguards minors and young people from sexual exploitation.

Are nave third parties true accomplices to receiving stolen property
Usually the court looks at the circumstances of the case to establish whether the third party had any knowledge whatsoever that the goods were stolen. Section22 of the Theft Act stipulates clearly that the third party must be aware that the goods were stolen for one to be held as an accomplice (Schmalleger, F. 67-71). This means that absence of the knowledge that the goods were stolen relives the third party from liability. In any criminal case there are two key elements that must be present and they are Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus Reus is the actual commission of the wrongful act like killing or stealing. Mens Rea on the other hand refers to the state of mind of the person. This means that there must be the proof that the accused person intended to commit the crime in question. Therefore if a third party handles stolen goods without knowledge that they were stolen it means that one lacks the Mens Rea (intention) of committing the crime of handling stolen goods and is therefore exonerated. It is important that there is proof that the accused person did have knowledge or believed that the goods were stolen as at the time of handling them. This was held in the case of R vs. Hall. According to this case, a person is said to have this knowledge if one has actual knowledge that the goods were stolen or is told by a reliable source (the person who stole) that the goods are stolen. Usually the most difficult part in such cases is to prove that the third party actually knew that the goods were stolen. Proof of this knowledge is difficult and it is up to the prosecution to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person knew of the facts (Schmalleger, F. 75-81).

Name an outdated law, and explain why it needs to be discarded.
There are many outdated laws that still exist in books of law and which need to be discarded as they are no longer of any use. A good example is the one according to which it is illegal in New Jersey and Oregon for any driver to pump their own gas. They are required to let a professional do it for them (Schmalleger, F. 125-129). When this law was passed gas pumping was a new phenomenon and thus this law was meant to protect ordinary drivers who were believed not to have sufficient knowledge as to how the gas pump works. However in todays world a boy as young as fourteen years clearly knows how the gas pump works and can go ahead and pump without any assistance. Such a law is no longer of any use and needs to be done away with. In Texas, a law that aims to prevent crime requires that a criminal prior to committing a crime must give a notice which could be written or oral within 24 hours indicating the nature of crime they intend to commit. This is obviously not practical and is virtually impossible to enforce. Yet another law that is perhaps outdated due to its impracticability in implementation is one of the laws in Louisiana (Schmalleger, F. 149-156). This law provides that a person can be jailed for making false promises. An example of this law is in a case of a wedding where one spouse makes a vow and fails to live by the vow. Although all these laws were initially made with the best interests of the society at heart they must be scrapped off the books as they are no good.

What criminal rights should suspected terrorists have
The position of the law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. This applies to all criminal cases including those of terrorism. This means that a suspect cannot be said to be guilty until investigations are complete and all evidence is seen to point at one (Schmalleger, F. 173-176). However, recently perhaps due to the increase in cases of terrorism rights of suspects have been highly violated. It is wrong to keep a suspect in custody without trial. It is a violation of their constitutional rights as they must be charged and tried within a given period of time. A suspect also has a right to remain silent and police officers cannot at such a time force the accused person to give information some of which might be self incriminating. Many terrorist suspects have been tortured to great lengths in an attempt to force them to give information (Schmalleger, F. 195-200). This also amounts to a violation of their rights as they should not be forced to give information. A suspect in terrorism case is under protection of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. This prevents a government of any country from convicting a suspect based on self incriminating information which one was forced to give.