******** Write a helpful 80 words response to the students paragraph. Write the response in first person by stating how you agree with them and adding more to their respone 1) Related to #1 in the attachmentThe second aggravating factor on Californias list states, “The defendant was convicted previously of murder in the first or second degree.” By this, they mean that any previous case that would be ruled as a first or second-degree murder in the state of California could cause the new first-degree murder case could become a capital case. The next aggravation factor is number four on the list, “The murder was committed by means of a destructive device, bomb, or explosive planted, hidden, or concealed in any place, area, dwelling, building, or structure, and the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his or her act or acts would create a great risk of death to one or more human beings.” If there is a case of first-degree murder that involves the use of some form of explosive of a destructive device then that means that the case could also then become a capital case. The final one I want to cover is number thirteen on the list, which states, “The victim was an elected or appointed official or former official of the federal government, or of any local or state government of this or any other state, and the killing was intentionally carried out in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance of, the victim’s official duties.” If one murders a government official in order to prevent the actions that they might take while in their role then the case could be switched to a capital case as well.Compared to the state of Missouri we have more aggravating factors that pertain more towards the prosecutors’ criminal background. Many of Missouris aggravating factors have to do with if the victim was in any form an officer of the peace. Whereas for California it was more about the details of the crime and the history of the person.2) related to #2 in the attachmentCA Penal Code 187, is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought.” It can also be defined as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with the intention of killing them. When broken down we will have the following elements:1. Unlawful killing (the killing was done without lawful excuse) 2. a human being or a fetus (It has to be a human being or a fetus) 3. with malice aforethought (the intention of committing said act) A prosecutor can prove if someone had intent to kill by finding out what elements or factors led to the murder. A scenario is provided by criminal.findlaw.com (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., “Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor’s front door. When Victor comes out of his house, Dan shoots and kills him.” A prosecutor would look into why Dan shot Victor and would question how the two know each other. Once the prosecutor learns that Victor slept with Dan’s wife, then he would realize Dan’s intention for killing Victor. 3) related to #3 in the Attachment – In your response to another student, I want you to look for evidence that they mentioned in their post that you didn’t. Comment on the evidence that you found most
important as compared to the
evidence they found important. Make sure to connect the evidence to the elements of
Kidnapping: 1. unlawful taking of a victim 2. movement to another location * “He picked her up, tossed her over his shoulder and put her in the car, Katala said” (K 1)* the two sisters looked on “stunned” * drove away with the little girl in his car (K 2)Sexual assault: 1. any sexual contact or behavior 2. that occurs without explicit consent * DNA on her shorts matched Reyes’ DNA (SA 1)* cellphone video where you can hear the girl crying, as well as pictures (SA 1&2)* Dr. who examined the girl concluded the trauma observed on her was consistent with the actions on the video (SA 1?)”Defense attorney Katharine Hatch argued that Dolan should not be considered an expert witness on the case after viewing the video one time years after the exam and that the injuries mentioned by the doctor could have had numerous other causes.” (ChicagoTribune) but just because he viewed the video later, the medical report was taken the evening after the assault occured, so the evidence something did happen was there, and he should still be considered as an expert witness. 4) Related to #4 in the Attachments Waldon’s behavior was like suspicious. Majore was very scared (emotional distress) and paid attention so she called police for all Waldon’s behavior. Although Waldon argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to charged him with stalking, Waldon was intentional course of conduct involving repeated to follow her. The state presented that Major observed Waldon six times during the year, so no eye contact, stalking, threat, and physical and verbal threat. In this the judge found there is mo fact and evidence to support finding that Waldom intended to harass Majors.In Fact, “Waldon got upset and fearful, but there is nothing about the counters which could make a reasonable person feel harassed”( Lippman 375). Also, Major’s fear can not form the basis for being that Waldon entertained the intent to harass Majors. Waldon’s was conduct protected under the First Amendment because there is no enough evidence. About I would not holing Waldom liable under the stalking statue.5) Related to #5 in the attachmentsAfter reading about Arson in our book, as well as watching the videos provided for the week, the story provided by Fox News seemed to have been missing a significant amount evidence. They stated they had not found a motive for the fire at the time. Arson is defined by the book as the willful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. The book also stated that under common law a tenant would not be guilty of arson for burning his or her rented apartment that is owned by the landlord; the landlord would be guilty of arson for burning the house that he or she owns and rents to the tenant. According to these definitions the 34-year old man should not have been charged with arson. Now let’s just say the man purposely did set his apartment on fire, and this was proved due to a reconstructed fire investigation. The 34-year old could be charged with arson because the fire crossed over into someone else’s property and caused damage. The family had to be displaced due to the water damage caused by the fire. The 34-year old set his apartment on fire in order to collect on renter’s insurance and we could say he and his wife had an agreement. This would be considered conspiracy. If the husband and wife planned for the children as well as her not to be present during the so called “accident” then both parties would be charged with arson, conspiracy, and insurance fraud. In this particular case I would not charge the man with attempt murder because of the common opinion throughout the neighborhood which confirmed he got along with them all, Showing no intent to commit murder against anyone.6) Related to #6 in the attachments1. According to the court, the law of burglary protects the interests for the right to a secure home, the safety of the people living in the home, and the protection against a confrontation with the trespassing person so that an escalated conflict can be prevented.2. Lacey entered the house though an open garage door before breaking into the bedroom through the door within the house. For it to be considered a statutory burglary, the defendant needs to have broken in to the house with force. The court held Lacey’s entry from a burglary since he just walked right into the garage. The court would have decided the issue differently had Lacey entered through a closed door. He would have used force, which means that he broke in from the outside of the house.3. Based on the case of Hitt v. Commonwealth, Lacey’s entrance would not constitute because he didn’t break in from the outside. He only broke in to the bedroom through the door. The case of Hitt conveys that it the defendant had only broke in within the house and not from the outside, it doesn’t count as a burglary.4. Although Lacey was convicted for statutory burglary at first, the book reversed the conviction because the details of how Lacey got in to steal the money didn’t meet the requirements for the case to be considered a burglary. The book states that one of the requirements was that the defendant was to break into the house. Lacey simply walked in through an open garage door. He then broke into the bedroom, but it was inside the house. For it to be a statutory burglary, he would have had to break into the house from the outside. Therefore, based on the Penal Code, Lacey didn’t technically commit a crime for statutory burglary.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running Head: Criminology
According to the Penal Code of California, the first three potential aggravation factors which
makes a murder case a capital case are: First, the murder case before court must have been
committed intentionally with a probable reason to achieve financial gains. This implies that the
Jury should be able to prove financial gain from the murder. Secondly, the defendant must have
had previous convictions of first or second-degree murder; this does not include cases they
suspected but not found guilty. Thirdly, the defendant in the case must have been convicted of
offenses more than one in of first or second-degree order. This implies that if a person has only
been convicted of one offense, then it cannot be an aggravation factor. After reading the Penal
Code of Oklahoma State, I found that the difference with that of California is that the Oklahoma
Penal Code includes a requirement that the defendant must have created chances of risk to loss of
life to more than one person while this requirement is not found in the California Penal Code.
Moreover, the California state includes politicians and prosecutors or Judges as potential victims
while the Oklahoma state on mentions peace officers as potential victims. Some of the
similarities between the two states include the facts that victims must be peaceful officers, the
murder was committed so as to cover court evidence and that the defendant must be convicted
with more than one offense.
Section 187 of the California Penal Code murder as “unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.” The elements in this definition includes: First, Unlawful Killing
which is meant to indicate a killing not authorized by law. Secondly, is “a human being, or a
fetus” which implies that that the victim of the murder must be a living human being or a fetus
who is alive though not yet born. Thirdly is “with malice aforethought” which implies that the
intention of the killing was malicious with premeditation. On the element of unlawful killing, the
prosecutor must provide evident proving that the killing was done against the law, or was
committed by a person not lawfully allowed to kill. Moreover, the prosecutor must provide vents
that prove the unlawful person committed the murder. Therefore, prosecutor must have evidence
from eye-witnesses and objects belonging to the defendant proving that they (the defendant)
committed the murder (Bal K. Jerath, 1993).
According to Penal Code, the definition of rape has several elements. First, the act must be of the
nature of sexual intercourse. secondly, the person performing the act should not be a spouse to
the victim. Thirdly, the means used must involve duress, violence, menace, force or infliction of
fear. The prosecutor must be able to proof that the defendant used force in an action of sexual
intercourse with the victim.
According to Penal Code, the definition of kidnapping has several elements. First the action
must be featured by force, detention and arrest or by way of enticing a child below 14 years.
Secondly, the victim of the action must belong to California state. Thirdly, the action must
involve carrying the victim to another state, county or country. The prosecutor must be able to
proof that the victim was carried to another country, state or county by the defendant (Marzilli,
1. Waldon behavior was very intimidating. He knew Majors works as a nurse in a hospital
and taught at a studio. So, he will often walk around the place doing necessarily nothing.
This is an intimidating behavior specially to Majors who was his former wife before the
divorced. Therefore, this was a reasonable reaction.
2. Judge Barteau’s differs with the majority by stating out Waldon behavior did not amount
into threatening because it did not involve threating either by word of mouth or
physically. Moreover, four times out six Waldon did not had an eye contact with majors;
which may imply Waldon did not see Major in the first place. Therefore, the fear by
Major may have just been out of other factors of psychology since Waldon did not
threaten her in whatsoever way.
3. Waldon was protected by the first amendment because he did not alter a word to Major in
all the times Majors saw him. Therefore, I would hold Waldon liable under the stalking
statute because there was no enough evidence to proof his action as ill-intended.
According to this case, I would charge the suspect for cause fire in a residential apartment and
risking the lives of other who lived in the apartment. According to the eye witness, it was clear
that the cause of the was intentional. According to my investigation, the suspect has damage
property worth $560,000. In addition, I have found that the suspect talked to a friend about
setting the apartment on fire. Therefore, he is liable to charges for conspiracy. Therefore, the
charges on the suspect will include charge for conspiracy, charge for destruction of property and
charge for risking human life. Evidence will include photographs of the burnt facility, the
reported conspiracy report from the friend and proof of intention to destroy human life.
According to the court, the law of burglary protects residential settings or other building
attached to the residential apartments. Moreover, the law requires that burglary must
involve breaking of a closed door.
The court held that Lacey’s entrance into the garage was not part of burglary because the
door was open hence no breaking was involved. Yes, the court will have considered
Lacey’s entrance burglary if the door was closed since some force related to breaking will
be required to enter through.
According to Hitt, Lacey’s entry did not constitute burglary because it involved entering
into a garage not a residential house.
I would not have affirmed the verdict of the court to convict Lacey of theft since the door
was open and that the money was openly or carelessly left by the owner. Therefore, it
will not be right to convicted Lacey of item theft.
Bal K. Jerath, R. J. (1993). Homicide: A Bibliography, Second Edition. New York: CRC Press.
Marzilli, A. (2005). Fetal Rights. New York : Infobase Pub.
Purchase answer to see full