Category: Criminal justice

Historically, acts of looting in response to a natural disaster or acts of civil unrest have resulted in widespread media coverage.
As these acts have been highly publicized, the government’s response to individuals that engage in this conduct has been the subject of intense political debate. Further, as social commentators and political leaders have noted, states and localities have responded differently across the country to prosecuting these actions.
Discuss whether you agree or disagree that looting should be viewed as an aggravating factor or punished more severely than ordinary theft or burglary and why? If you find that the act of looting should be punished more severely, please identify the justification(s) for punishment and why you find that the punishment should be enhanced. Should all instances of looting be treated the same? Please discuss the factors that should be used to evaluate and grade the severity of act of looting and why you have identified each factor.

You have been tasked with explaining to a class the four primary types of intent for murder and providing a factual scenario that fits each type. The types include purposely; knowingly; recklessly; and negligently. 
10-12 slides. Slide 1 will be your definition of a murder with purposeful intent. Slide 2 will be a fact pattern of a murder that meets the definition. Do the same for the other three definitions. Finally, your last two slides will cover the felony/murder scenario, and how someone could be held responsible for a murder, even when they are not present.  
Create PowerPoint Slides  
PPT Slides: 10-12 slides  
Additional slide with cited sources (Format: MLA or APA format)  
2-3 Outside sources  
Answer the prompt provided

Assignment Documents
Refer to the following Case Law for this assignment: Regina v. Cunningham.pdf
Refer to the following sample case briefing as a guideline on how to format the assignment: Sample Case Brief
Objective for this Assignment
Through this assignment, the student will learn how to brief a court ruling. In writing a case brief, one’s task is to essentially summarize a court ruling (sometimes called a court “opinion” or “judgment”). In many ways, a case brief can be compared to a book report, as it is meant to summarize the key aspects of a larger body of information. The general aspects of a case addressed by a student brief include (but are not limited to) the following:
facts of the case (what transpired between the parties involved before the case was brought to court)
issues (the questions that the court in this specific case addresses)
majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions (the judge’s reason for deciding the way he/she did)
holding (the final verdict or decision of the court)
analysis (the student’s original commentary regarding the significance of the case)
It is essential in criminal law to understand the history and reasoning behind the laws and rules of law that govern our criminal justice system. Everyone has heard of the Miranda Rights, but do you know how those rights came about and when must police officers read someone their Miranda rights (hint – they DO NOT have to be read every time someone is arrested!)? An example of a case brief using Miranda v. Arizona is provided above in the sample case brief.
You do not need to “Google” the case to write the case brief. If you just read the case, all of the information you need to write the briefing is there. You are just summarizing each case. Your instructor will be able to tell if you copied and pasted from the internet. If you are caught doing this, you will receive a zero for the assignment. Any repeat offenses will result in you being referred for academic discipline and a zero for the assignment. Students who read the case and put it in their own words receive higher grades and learn more than those who do not. Each case has been assigned to you for a specific reason or lesson. You will learn nothing from copy and paste.
Submission Format
Each assignment will be submitted to the appropriate dropbox in a .doc or docx format.
Your paper should be double-spaced and include a centered title. Any sources used should be properly cited in APA format.

Address the following in your main post:
In your opinion, when should forensic biology be applied to criminal investigations? Explain.
Provide 2 significantly different examples where forensic biology should be applied to a criminal investigation. Justify your examples.
Provide 2 significantly different examples where forensic biology should NOT be applied to a criminal investigation. Justify your examples.
Should the cost of forensic biology tests and activities be considered when conducting a criminal investigation? Why or why not? Explain.
How do you think the field of forensic biology can be improved with regard to criminal investigations? Explain.  

Collecting community members’ perceptions of crime in their communities through surveys is a common research method in Criminal Justice. In this assignment, you and your groupmates (if applicable) will conduct a survey to ascertain respondent perceptions about some aspects of crime in their community based on social disorganization theory (this can include things like perceptions of crime overall, disorder, policing, and other neighborhood characteristics).
Using GoogleForms, you and your groupmates will create a survey asking questions based on the research you conducted for your literature review, the findings and experience collecting observational data in your community, and your review of crime data. Think about the studies you reviewed, methods they used, questions they answered, and things left unanswered. Also reflect on the things you saw (or didn’t see) in your community and how those observations might frame your survey questions. Finally, reflect on your review of crime data and begin thinking ahead about how you will look at and present your data. One group member will be responsible for hosting the Google Form and linking the group members to it.
In GoogleForms, create a survey of at least 10 items, including topic specific questions, and demographic questions (age, gender, etc.). You should also include at least two of each type of survey question: 1) Binary (yes/no; male/female, etc.); 2) categorical; 3) Likert scale (rating); and at least one 4) continuous (I recommend age) and 5) open-ended (don’t use too many of these–you will have to do extra coding!). Be sure to carefully review your questions to consider the wording, the order and flow, and the time it takes to complete the survey. If you do not have groupmates you can work on your own!!
Be sure to include an opening statement welcoming participants to take your survey, describe what the survey is about and identifying yourself as a researcher, assure them confidentiality, and the projected time it will take. Be sure to include my name and contact information for any questions and a thank you!
Then, you will share (add as collaborator/editor) your Google Form with me ( for a review before disseminating. You MUST get the OK from me before sending out your survey.
You will request at least 25 people (per person) to take your survey through a convenience sampling strategy, but the more respondents you have, the better your analysis will be! Recruit your family, friends, , classmates, via social media, etc. Be sure that it is anonymous and does not collect individuals information, even email addresses.
Submit your GoogleForm url to Canvas and add me as a collaborator so I can see your questions/responses. 
Grading Rubric:
Survey (45)
Opening
Questions
Types
Wording
Flow
Survey recruitment (at least 25 respondents per person) (15)

Essay
Assignment #2
Option/Question
1:  Chapter 7 of the textbook, “Crime Control
Through Legislation,” contains a discussion of America’s “drug problem” and laws
designed to limit or ban the use of specific psychoactive substances (see
sections titled “Drug Bans,” “The Scope of America’s Drug Problem,” and “Drug
Ban Problems”).  The federal report 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year
Follow-up Period (2005-2014) contains some discussion of the release and
recidivism of persons incarcerated for drug-related offenses. 
Write an essay which briefly summarizes (i) the “drug
problem” in the United States, (ii) the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of laws
which criminalize the use of drugs, and (iii) recidivism among drug offenders
released from prison. 
Directions: 
1.)  This assignment provides three (3)
options/questions.  Choose one (1)
option/question and write an essay (1,200 – 1,500 words) answering the question.  You should be sure to address everything the
question inquires about and to be thorough in your explanation.  The essay should be between 1,200 and
1,500 words in length.  Please keep
in mind the fact that 1,200 words is the minimum length.  The depth and detail of your essay will be
taken into consideration when the essay is graded, so it is in your best
interest to be thorough in your essay. 
2.)  Please prepare your essay as a Microsoft Word
document and double-space your essay. 
3.)  Be sure to adequately
address each key issue a question asks about and balance your essay.  In other words, roughly equivalent attention
should be afforded to each key issue. 
You should NOT, for example, dedicate two thirds of your essay to one of
the issues inquired about and then just briefly touch upon the others. 
4.)  Regarding personal opinion/ideas/analyses of
the issues: Some of the essay questions may ask you to provide an opinion or
your personal ideas about or analysis of an issue.   With respect to personal
opinion/ideas/analyses, there is NOT a right or wrong answer.  No points will be deducted because a student
voices a specific opinion or expresses a particular idea.  However, when presenting an
opinion/idea/analysis you MUST provide a clear explanation and rationale for
your opinion/analysis/ideas.  In other
words, you need to describe and discuss your thoughts on the matter and provide
a supporting argument for your opinion/views/ideas.  Do NOT just provide an opinion/view/analysis
without also providing a rationale. 
5.)  Regarding outside research/reference
materials (i.e., any research/reference materials other than the required text
and/or assigned readings), no outside materials are necessary, expected, or
permitted for this assignment.  The
essay you write must be based on the materials assigned in this class. 
6.)  Regarding the use of quotes and the matter
of plagiarism, you should feel free to use quotes from the textbook
and/or assigned readings, but such quotes should be used sparingly.  In other words, you should use no more than a
few quotes in the essay (four or five, at the most) and the quotes should be
short and relevant.  There should be no
long quotes (i.e., no quote should be more than a single sentence in length) in
your essay nor should your essay consist primarily of a series of quotes from
the text.  You should NOT use any direct
quotes from the online synopses of the assigned readings nor should any of your
essays strongly resemble the online summaries of the assigned readings.  In short, all essays must be original.  They should be written in your own words and,
in the event that a question requires you to present an opinion, the opinion
you present should be your own. 
When using quotes, all
quotes should be in quotation marks and should indicate the author(s) and page
number from the text (see examples below). 
Please keep in mind the fact that, as stated on the course syllabi, the
penalty for plagiarism is a failing grade for the class. 
Direct Quote Example #1:  Worrall suggests that “Liberals often favor
the protection of people’s rights and liberties to a higher degree than their
conservative counterparts do” (p. 34). 
Direct Quote Example #2:  Research on police-public contacts has shown
that roughly “6.7% of U.S. residents age 16 or older initiated contact with
police on one or more occasions to report a crime, disturbance, or suspicious
activity, while 3.5% initiated contact to report a non-crime emergency” (Davis,
Whyde, and Langton, p. 5). 

You are to submit a 1000-1500 word paper regarding the federal court system. 
The paper should be doubled space, 12 point font.  You must use three scholarly references, one of which may be your text. 

write a APA Style 7th edition term paper that consist of three (3) full pages of substance, not including the cover page and reference page. 
Each paper must include at least three peer-reviewed journal articles that support your analysis. Must format in-text citations and references in APA Style 7th edition.   
select one of the topics below to research and write on. The topic choice is up to you, but the top selection must come from this list. (Please select whichever topic below to write about, I have no preference, as long as it’s one of the following below!) 
The United States Criminal Justice System 
Criminal Law in the United States
The History of US Law Enforcement
Compare different police patrol procedures
Law Enforcement Jurisdiction
Analysis of a Supreme Court Case (Student can select any US Supreme Court Case that impacted police producers or protocols)
Federal law enforcement (select only one agency)
Police Patrol Procedures (select one are to focus on)
Local Police/Law Enforcement (Select a state, county, or city department)
Technology used to enhance police patrol strategy
History of US Jails
The State Court System (Students are free to select the state court system they write about)
Corrections (any area but it is advised to select a narrow topic) 
Ethical issues in law enforcement

Reaction Paper about two documentaries: Pervert Park (2014 Documentary) & Punishing the Pedophiles- Investigative Reports (1998 Episode). Also, answer all questions in the PDF instructions.

Week 7 Discussion – D. Wessels
Dana Wessels 
If a criminal profile is meant to do more than narrow a potential suspect pool and be used as evidence against an individual, it needs to meet the same criteria as any other piece of evidence admitted. While there is some inherent subjectivity in the creation of a profile, the limitations must be acknowledged for the benefit to be realized.
Bosco et al. (2010) describes the general criteria for scientific evidence being presented in a courtroom according to the Daubert standard as it related to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993. In order for that evidence to be considered admissible, it needs to be reliable, be able to withstand critical peer review and publication (i.e. the most recent and reliable research), indicate the error rate in analyses, be generally accepted, reach the general standard for evidence given by an expert, and be clearly applicable to the case as hand. Criminal profiles have been presented by FBI agents, psychologists and psychiatrists and criminologists considered ‘experts’ to give their opinions and interpretations of an offender’s motivation, modus operandi specific to an individual, and linkage between multiple crimes potentially committed by the same offender.
Experts may not be allowed to testify in courts, or their opinions may be argued to be improperly admitted, if said expert is not considered qualified to speak on the topic. For example, in 2002 Angela Garcia was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder for the deaths of her two daughters who had died from smoke inhalation in a house fire, of which Garcia was the only survivor. It was determined that the fire had intentionally been set for the purpose of collecting insurance money while the daughters had been found under suspicious circumstances, and the state presented expert witnesses who spoke to the fire’s origin (State v. Garcia, 2002). A total of six cause of origin experts had concluded that that there were two separate fires intentionally started in the house, and the presence of the use of an accelerant indicated arson. However, Garcia’s first expert claimed that lit candles in the household had fallen over to start the fire, while another expert testified that the cause of the fire could not be determined. These two experts gave their opinions that there was no conclusive proof that the fires had been started intentionally due to the lack of proof that accelerants had been used.
Mark McCrary and Ronald Saunders were two of the expert witnesses presented by the State. McCrary, a crime-scene analyst, testified that the fire was characteristic of an “arson for profit” incident in his expert opinion (State v. Garcia, 2002, Tr. 2771-2772). Saunders, a forensic auditor, had similarly given testimony that Garcia had a financial motive for intentionally starting these fires. Garcia claimed the court should never have allowed their testimonies because they did not qualify as experts (although what would have been required to allow them to reach that expert status is not clear). While McCrary had worked within the FBI for 25 years, he admitted he was not an arson expert. Never the less, he had examined the totality of the evidence, to include witness testimony and insurance claims made by Garcia, and testified that the categorization of arson in this case was, in his opinion, most consistent with arson for profit. Saunders testified that he reviews crimes to determine if there is a financial motive; he also testified that he believed there was such a motive for Garcia. According to the appellate court transcript, their testimonies were considered highly improper because the conclusions they gave should have been for the jury to conclude. Additionally, they claimed their testimonies merely compounded the other evidence presented.
Yet, Garcia never disputed the evidence proving she had taken out a policy on the house and her two daughters just before this fire. She also never disputed inquiring about transferring custody of her two daughters to her sister, most likely because having them in her custody would have impeded her joining the Navy. Evidence also substantiated her neighbor’s eyewitness testimony that movers had moved furniture out of the house in the days preceding the fire. The two deceased daughters were also found deceased with cords tied around their limbs. These pieces of evidence were enough to collectively conclude that McCrary and Saunders’ testimonies had not improperly altered the outcome of the trial. The court ended up finding reasonable grounds for the appeal. Ultimately, Garcia accepted a plea deal many years later admitting to arson and involuntary manslaughter in order to obtain a reduced sentence.
There is a lot of controversy around this case, but it’s interesting to specifically examine the two expert witnesses who testified and were later considered improperly admitted. Despite years working in the FBI, McCrary’s testimony was appealed because he wasn’t an ‘arson’ expert.  Saunders was a forensic auditor, but it was also claimed that he could not be considered an expert.
It was still determined that these two expert witnesses’ testimony had not been enough to improperly invade the province of the jury because there was enough additional evidence against the defendant that couldn’t be denied or disproven. However, the fact that their contributions were considered improper due to their lack of qualifications as an expert is a completely predicable objection on the defendant’s part as their testimony refutes her claims that the fire was accidental. This makes one wonder who would have the credentials necessary to put forth expert testimony against the defendant; it seems completely foreseeable that any expert who testifies against the defendant will be rejected if their opinion implies guilt.
This was an example of a case where there was no shortage of eyewitness testimony. There was also sufficient forensic evidence for six expert witnesses to testify that the fire had two points of origin, although the use of an accelerant is contested (Stave v. Garcia, 2002). If an expert is called to testify in court, their backgrounds and work/research experience should be consistent with the questions they are going to be asked, such as was this fire started intentionally? Why were there two points of origin? Was there a financial motive for this fire? It is almost a foregone conclusion that the defense will reject their opinion, so the expert must also be able to justify why they are coming to those conclusions. No expert witness will, or should, be able to simply give their opinion to the jury; just as any evidence presented in court needs to be explained and defended, those testifying to any of the aspects determined with a criminal profile need to be prepared to do so according to the Daubert standard.  
I believe profiles in court should be admitted if they can be presented in a manner consistent with the Daubert standard; the background research, acknowledgement of potential error, description of standards and applicability to crime all need to be documented and prepared beforehand in case the testimony is called into question. Despite the fact that the defendant in a case will almost inevitably reject the opinion of a profiler, the reasoning provided beforehand should give that profiler’s opinion enough of a foundation upon which to stand (and if it doesn’t, this indicates that the conclusion may be too uncertain to hold much weight). Additionally, the profile needs to be consistent with the forensic evidence collected from the scene. The facts of the case are not to be interpreted to fit a narrative; they need to be the unbiased starting point upon which a profile is based.
REFERENCES
Bosco, D., Zappalà, A., & Santtila, P. (2010). The admissibility of offender profiling in courtroom: A review of legal issues and court opinions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.03.009
State v. Garcia (Court of Appeals Ohio 2002). Supreme Court of Ohio. Retrieved from https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=4c16b318b637fe65JmltdHM9MTcxODU4MjQwMCZpZ3VpZD0yNTRhY2ZlMS0wZDRiLTZmOWMtMTM3MC1kYjcxMGM5YjZlZjQmaW5zaWQ9NTE5OQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=254acfe1-0d4b-6f9c-1370-db710c9b6ef4&psq=2002+garcia+ohio&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc3VwcmVtZWNvdXJ0Lm9oaW8uZ292L3JvZC9kb2NzL3BkZi84LzIwMDIvMjAwMi1PaGlvLTQxNzkucGRm&ntb=1.