Crime And Punishment Law Assignment Discussion Board And Analysis
Task: Can crime and punishment law assignmentdetermine how charges need to be classified in to different types of crimes to allow the correct law is used before making accurate judgement
Primary task response
Type of homicide charges
This Crime and punishment law assignment explores the types of homicide charges under Title 76-1-301 of Utah Criminal Code, which includes offenses for which prosecution shall be commenced at any point of time, it needs to be stated that murder is considered to be the most gruesome crime, wherein the felony is punishable under law, with a life-time imprisonment and a penalty of $10,000 (Robinson et al.2015). The types of charges include offenses against the person, offenses against property, and offense against public health, safety and welfare and morals (Mathen, 2014). Subsections 76-5-202(1)(d) or (e) or Subsection 76-5-202(2) state that Criminal conspiracies, which tend to harm individuals , cause a lethal impact on the victim, also accounts to incidences of aggravated murders, which are punishable with a life imprisonment under the Federal law of the US (Utah Code Title 76. Utah Criminal Code, 2022).
Commonness in charges
Reading the commonness in charges, it needs to be stated that the charges for the different types of crimes are not same and hence, it needs to be stated that murder is considered to be a punishable under the eye of law, as included within Section 76-5-310 of the Utah Criminal Code(Zapf et al.2014). Under Title 76 of Utah Criminal Code, it needs to be stated that the impact of the murderous acts are eligible to first degree felony charges, wherein the offender is considered to be punishable under law (Bedi, 2016).
Understanding the probable cause for the crime, could be the incidence of burglary, wherein Roberts and Steve Chapman are both considered to be suspects. The probable cause behind the incidence, wherein Steve Chapman holds an intention to conduct a burglary, and murdered Roberts in the head by making sure that the victim is dead. However, it is more obvious that the offender has been aimed at not only conducting the burglary, but also on murdering him to make sure that there is no eye witness for the crime, as committed. The other crimes that the suspects have committed include burglary, which under the Title 76. Utah Criminal Code is considered to be regarding a person, who unlawfully enters any vehicle with an intention to commit a felony act or theft for offense of the crimes (Iyoha ET al.2017). Burglary of vehicles is a (class A) misdemeanor, wherein a charge is imposed against a person for any sort of violation of the subsections 1 under the Title 76. Utah Criminal Code shall not be eligible for precluding the charges for committing an offense, which is punishable under the Law (Simmons, 2016).
Under the Title Section 76-5-308.5 of the Utah Criminal Code, it is obvious that act of burglary is considered to be an act of voyeurism, wherein sections 76-9-702 is considered to be a third degree felony charges unless it was committed in a dwelling, wherein the same shall be considered to be a second degree felony charge (Utah Code Title 76. Utah Criminal Code). Hence, considering the case, the additional charges shall be considered under the second degree felony charges. The additional charges, levelled against the stated incident, accounts to the acknowledgement of reading under section -2-402 force in defence of a person. Chapter 5 of the Utah Criminal Code relates to acts of burglary, robbery s defined under Chapter 6, which refers to the offenses against the property. Section 76-3-203.1 states that any offense committed in concert with three or more people in regards to a street gang shall be considered under the felony charges along with robbery committed in residences, under section subsection 76-2-202(2).
Responses to other students preparing the Crime and punishment law assignment
Response to the 1st student
I could learn about the significance of the additional charges that are included within the process of holding a convict, of both burglary and suspected killing. However, I do have the primary question stated as considering both the participants as suspects and on what basis are they both pleaded guilty. In the given case study, both the participants are considered to be suspects, wherein the additional charges need to be applied across the convict, by evaluating his sense of intention and aim of committing the crime. Regarding the posting, my clarification would focus on finding whether to consider Roberts suspect for one crime or multiple ones. Locating the similarities and dissimilarities, it needs to be stated that the posts shared by the fellow student does not have clarification in regards to the ground on considering both as suspects.
Response to the 2nd student
I would like to state that while investigating the Crime and punishment law assignment, both Roberts and Steve Chapman are considered as suspects, wherein Steve Chapman is accused of killing Roberts, with the intention of ensuring that no eye witness is present in the incident. The additional question would be to find out the causes, and consequences of the incident, so much so that it left to an accused murder of Roberts, by Steve Chapman. Sorting out the similarities and differences, I would like to state that considering both the individuals as suspects during this Crime and punishment law assignment research, it is important to highlight on the implications of addressing the intensity in the crime and finding resolutions to resolve the situations. Finding out the similarities and dissimilarities, the primary area of focus lies in determining the intensity of the situation and the consequential murder of Roberts, wherein Steve Chapman is accused of committing the crime.
Bedi, M., 2016. Toward a Uniform Code of Police Justice. U. Chi. Legal F., p.13. Haynes, J. (2018). Legislative approaches to combating ‘revenge porn’: a multijurisdictional perspective. Statute Law Review, 39(3), 319-336.
Iyoha, O. F., Olujobi, O. J., & Oyewunmi, O. A. (2017). Application of the Laws of Defamation and Sedition in Nigeria's Jurisprudence: Still Relevant. J. Advanced Res. L. & Econ., 8, 59.
Mathen, C., 2014. Crowdsourcing sexual objectification. Laws, 3(3), pp.529-552.
Robinson, P. H., Kussmaul, M. G., Stoddard, C. M., Rudyak, I., & Kuersten, A. (2015). The American criminal code: General defenses. Journal of Legal Analysis, 7(1), 37-150.
Simmons, R. (2016). The failure of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Time to take an administrative approach to regulating computer crime. Geo. Wash. L. Rev., 84, 1703.
Stark, F. (2016). Culpable carelessness: recklessness and negligence in the criminal law. Cambridge University Press.
Zapf, P. A., Roesch, R., & Pirelli, G. (2014). Assessing competency to stand trial.
Utah Code Title 76. Utah Criminal Code | FindLaw. Crime and punishment law assignment(2022). Retrieved 4 February 2022, from https://codes.findlaw.com/ut/title-76-utah-criminal-code/