fandomhigh | Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #7, Feb 16]

"Today," Alex said, "I have good news, and not-so-good news. The bad news out of the way first: today you'll be having a midterm exam."

"The good news is: you may use any of the notes you've taken in class so far. You may use any resource you've brought in with you, for that matter, so long as you do not ask for help from your classmates. No talking to your neighbors, no passing notes, and absolutely no collaborating on answers." She stopped there to look around the room and be sure that the students knew she was taking that point seriously. "Back on the good news side: this is not a hard exam. I'm not asking you to define terms -- any of the terms I use, I defined myself. The point of this class isn't whether or not you can correctly tell me what 'mens rea' is -- it's whether or not you understand how to apply it."

Alex tapped the stack of papers on her desk. "So these questions are largely asking you to come up with arguments on certain topics -- the ones we've covered thus far in the semester. Give a reason for it, and then, since the legal system exists in gray areas, give a reason against it. Find one example that fits, and another that doesn't. I'm not going to grade these harshly. I want to see if we're all on the same page, or if I need to back up and recover some old ground."

"When you're finished, you can stay, or you can leave, but do not talk to your classmates, even if you've both completed your exams. It might distract those who are still taking it. Any questions?"

If there weren't any, then Alex was going to start passing out their tests.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh shit! Midterm!

Panic. Flail. Raise your hand and ask any last-minute questions you might have.

The test Alex hands out only has five questions on it, with ample space after each for a paragraph or two of writing, should you decide to do that much.

(This is where the sub-questions are going to go: I felt like nesting the OCD. As always, handwaving is totally fine.)

This thread is here in case you need to ask Alex for clarification on any of the questions, or anything like that. You're totally free to pester her with "um, you mean X, right?"

During the exam, they're as off-limits as the rest of your classmates, sorry. But after class ends, you can talk to them freely.

Flail, panic, ask her to not count your grade, or just chit-chat.

I just wanted an excuse to us this icon. Mmm, Alex's legs.

Oh, also! The case studies are taken from two SVU cases during Alex's tenure. Double jeopardy is "Rooftops," S3E4, and capital punishment is "Manhunt," S2E18.

Edited 2010-02-16 18:59 (UTC)

Mens Rea means the ability to knowingly and intentionally commit a crime. List one reason why a person might be found to be not responsible for a crime because of mens rea.

A defense attorney realizes that her client is guilty, and unrepentant. As a result, she knowingly cripples her own case in court, to ensure that he receives the maximum penalty. Under the adversarial system, which grants each side an attorney to argue his or her case, why is this considered inappropriate? List at least one reason.

Edited 2010-02-16 19:00 (UTC)

The harm principle says the state should only prosecute crimes where one person is directly and clearly hurting another. The offense principle says that society can and should make rules to protect offenders from themselves, or for the good of society as a whole. List one crime that violates the harm principle, and one that would instead violate the offense principle.

(Note: the latter are sometimes referred to as victimless crimes, a term which also came up during our discussion.)

A man has been having consensual sex with girls who are considered too young to give informed consent. Worse, he has a sexually transmitted disease, one which is both untreatable and ultimately fatal. He serves his time and is released, but he is a repeat offender, at high risk to infect (and therefore, kill) more teenagers. The state wishes to protect its citizens by re-arresting him, but his lawyer states this violates double jeopardy, which is a citizen's right not to be tried for the same crime twice.

Give one argument for each side.

Edited 2010-02-16 18:56 (UTC)

A serial killer lives in the United States, a country which practices capital punishment. When pursued by police, he crosses the border illegally to enter Canada, a nearby country which does not support the death penalty. Canada has stated that it will not extradite (send a criminal back to his or her home country) unless the home country agrees not to seek the death penalty. The man confesses to his crimes -- murder and torture among them -- but asks Canada to grant him sanctuary, and not release him to the US.

Give one argument for each side.

Nobody Owens

A midterm didn't send Bod into a panic but he did find himself trying to push everything else out of his mind so he could focus on just this subject and everything he'd learned so far.

Bod didn't think he remembered everything they'd learned and, despite the notes, found himself still thinking more before he started writing.

If a person is of diminished mental capacity, it might be something to take into account despite said person committing a crime. Depending on the severity of the disability, they might not have known any better."

Kurt Wagner

Kurt panicked. "A midterm? ALREADY??!?!"

Bod wrote, If, sometime in the future, she was found to have knowingly sabotaged her cause, the conviction could be overturned thus releasing someone she knows is guilty and letting them go free.

Kurt nervously went over the questions again in his head and hoped his answers were good enough.

It took Bod a little longer to start writing this time but he did get an answer written.

Assault would violate the harm principle and drug abuse would violate the offense principle, I believe.

Andrew Wiggin

"Miss Cabot?" Ender prompted, once his own test was done and turned in. "I'd like to apologise for my absence last week."

Aravis

For the side saying it is double jeopardy, Bod wrote, if he has served his time and has committed no other crime than he can't really be arrested again. There would be no cause for it, no crime to charge him with since his sentence has been served.

He tapped his pencil and wrote, For the side saying it isn't double jeopardy, the offended could be charged with a different crime than previously but I actually would wonder why he wasn't charged with everything all at once in the past. I don't know if there really is a solid argument for saying it isn't in this case.

Since the man was arrested on Canadian soil, it would technically give them jurisdiction and control over the man, Bod wrote carefully, even if the crimes were committed elsewhere. Canada could punish the man in their own way and say that it was just as good as extraditing him back but good in a different way. Still, since the crimes were committed on American soil and the victims are, presumably, America, extraditing him would be the only fair thing. The citizens of America would want to see this man punished by their government and given justice to their victims.

Page 1 of 4

Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #7, Feb 16]

Sign In - JST07

During the Lecture - JST07

Midterm Exam - JST07

During the Exam: Talk to Alex - JST07

After the Exam: Talk to the TAs - JST07

After the Exam: Talk to Alex - JST07

OOC - JST07

Question 1: Mens Rea and Intent - JST07

Question 2: The Adversarial System - JST07

Question 3: The Harm Principle (Victimless Crimes) - JST07

Question 4: Case Study: Double Jeopardy

Question 5: Case Study - Capital Punishment

Re: Sign In - JST07

Re: During the Lecture - JST07

Re: Question 1: Mens Rea and Intent - JST07

Re: Sign In - JST07

Re: During the Lecture - JST07

Re: Question 2: The Adversarial System - JST07

Re: After the Exam: Talk to the TAs - JST07

Re: Question 3: The Harm Principle (Victimless Crimes) - JST07

Re: Sign In - JST07

Re: After the Exam: Talk to Alex - JST07

Re: Sign In - JST07

Re: Question 4: Case Study: Double Jeopardy

Re: Question 5: Case Study - Capital Punishment