For me is difficult to understand why.Not how.:)
I don't understand why legislator proposed, debated, and enacted the particular statue quoted.
But how ,I think comes from reading its plain language.
Of course,if one asserts the statutes language is ambiguous one undertakes the burden to...
http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44575&page=4
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11121.pdf
It appears not.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to...
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a “conviction” for immigration
purposes includes:
[A] formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of
guilt has been withheld, where:
(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea...
The problem could be,the intent to deceive is a question of fact,for the fact finder to decide (the jury).
Using another individual credit card, when not listed as an authorized user in the credit card agreement,I think very likely,such jury,would use it as an inference to establish the intent.
Having or not having knowledge - was the card stolen or wasn't,doesn't have bearing on the fact He had knowledge the card is not his ( he used credit card of another ,I assume,presenting it to the store clerk as it was his).
Did he have a duty,of a reasonable person,to know it was stolen,has...
Effect of Repeal: United States of America
Crawford in his book on "Statutory Construction" dealing with the general effect of the repeal of an Act states the law in America to be as follows:--- ''A repeal will generally, therefore, divest all inchoate rights which have arisen under the...
O yeah ......I know you!!!!!!
I know You are making fun of me again!!!You are using irony or something$$#*(*&((*^(*0
You must be!!!!
Or is this genuine and my Christmas present? ..:angel :D
Yes and no I think.The law will apply retro-actively IF congress specifies retro activity,for those already convicted,but not for those who are not..
Those who have not been convicted and their cases are pending,(or have not even been charged ) are off the hook,and it is not up to Congress to to...
mightymoose
I just carefully read your last posts.I see that you discovered that
If that is true,that means such conduct was not decriminalized,as the OP stated.
Unlike you I did not check.
I based what I said on the premise that what OP stated is a fact.
I am lazy that way...
This is how I see this controversy.There is two elements that must exist to establish criminal act.Actus reus and mens rea.
If such conduct is no longer considered a crime,there is absence of actus reus and thus such conduct is no crime any longer .
It was before?
Sure.It is not now though...
In Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S. Ct. 708, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held “that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no...
look,I am not a lawyer.I don't know if mightymoose is or not,he might be a law student.
There is few lawyers active on the board,they might chime in.
Could they bring charges?Sure,anything can happen.Should such charges stick,in the light of the (as you claim) recent decriminalization of the...
Wrong again.It is always true.
It doesn't depend on that.
Why do you doubt it? It is no longer a crime.If it is no longer a crime,why do you doubt that no one should be prosecuted for such conduct any longer?
Here is references:
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/rossi.htm...
Wrong by all means.
That is not how retro-activity of law works.
The universal common-law rule,almost anywhere in the world,in U.S included, is that when the legislature repeals a criminal statute or otherwise removes the State's condemnation from conduct that was formerly deemed criminal...