definition of criminal charges?
I want an understanding of the criminal charges pressed against a person who committed a crime against me. I live in Washington state. I want to know definition of 1st degee theft, assault in the 2nd degree, and, malious mischief in the 2nd degree.
Section 530.5 of the Penal Code has to do with identity theft.
Section 14601.1a of the Vehicle Code is driving with a suspended license (you wrote 1460.1a, so I’m just assuming you left the other ’1′ out).
Section 4140 of the Business and Professions Code is unlawful possession of a syringe.
Section 478 of the Penal Code is the punishment for counterfeiting. I’m wondering if maybe you meant 487, which would be grand theft.
In order to research California statutes, you need to know the number of the statute and the code it is in (Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health and Safety Code, etc.).
the bar….refers to the lawyers…..the bar is the group that oversees the lawyers.
whenever you here about a lawyer messing up, you will here someone say…report them to the bar
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
I LUV CARPET/VINYL ETC.
July 29, 2011 7:58 pm
where do i find the definitions of codes of criminal charges?
i found penal codes for most but not530.5 A,1460.1A,4140 pp or 478..any info for me?
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Justin
July 29, 2011 8:10 pm
Criminal Justice definition?
The system of law enforcement, the bar, the judiciary, corrections, and probation that is directly involved in the apprehension, prosecution, defense, sentencing, incarceration, and supervision of those suspected of or charged with criminal offenses.
The above is a definition of the Criminal Justice System. My question is what is the bar?
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
nmcollegestudent
July 29, 2011 11:03 pm
Could criminal charges be brought against John Travolta for the negligent death of his son?
Of course, he is a scientologist (I will not capitalize it; it is a cult), and I am sure this led him to ignoring doctor after doctor that told him that his son did not have some jet-ski named condition (“kawasaki”), but Autism. For ignoring this–and hence ignoring the treatments–and ‘allowing’ his son to perish, couldn’t Travolta and his wife face charges? Don’t you think this is perhaps related to why he was cremated already?
Two notes:
1) I could care less about celebrities. But this is an issue of child abuse, in my and many others’ opinions.
2) I do not believe in criminal justice nor do I believe in criminals. We are all equal human beings with the birthright to do whatever it is we want (as long as it doesn’t hurt others…but even there is where the definition gets perverted). Labels are for soup cans, not people. However, this seems like negligence leading to death which may or may not have been covered up in more than one way.
Please let me know what you guys think and believe.
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
VA:F [1.9.15_1155]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
rickinnocal
July 29, 2011 11:28 pm
They could be brought, yes.
In the Bahamas – like in the UK or the US – prosecutors have very broad discretion as to what they charge.
Whether a conviction could be obtained is a different matter. The possible charges – “Negligent homicide” or “Child Neglect” – both require that the defendant have acted in a manner that he “knew”, or “should have known” was likely to result in harm to the child.
The Travolta’s are Scientologists. As such they do not believe that Autism exists. Since they do not believe that Autism exists, it follows that they could not be held to know that not treating it could lead to harm.
The Travoltas were giving their son a cocktail of vitamins and minerals sold by the “Church of Scientology” to treat a church diagnosed syndrome supposedly caused by smelling a carpet cleaner when he was a baby. (Contrary to the poster above, it is not a prescription medication, nor was it administered by a licensed doctor)
Medications are available that a medical doctor would have believed could have controlled his seizures, but the Travoltas simply don’t believe in the existance of the disease that caused the seizures, so they made a decision, based in their own beliefs, to withhold those medications.
That, legally speaking, is not *negligent*. If they believed that the anti-seizure medication would have prevented Jetts seizures, and simply didn’t bother to give it to him, that’s negligent. Not giving him anti-seizure medication because they truly believed it wouldn’t stop the seizures, is not negligent.
While this may seem whacko to reasonable people, negligence charges must be prosecuted in the light of what the *parents* believed at the time. If they truly believed that what they were doing was best for their son then they were not negligent, even if any doctor would have said it was quackery with no basis in science or medicine.
June 21, 2011
8:06 pm
definition of criminal charges?
I want an understanding of the criminal charges pressed against a person who committed a crime against me. I live in Washington state. I want to know definition of 1st degee theft, assault in the 2nd degree, and, malious mischief in the 2nd degree.
July 9, 2011
4:30 am
Try this link
http://www.co.washington.mn.us/info_for_residents/county_attorneys_office/criminal_division/legal_definitions/
July 25, 2011
1:57 am
I’m guessing you’re talking about California laws here, but it’s hard to tell.
If you are, go here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Section 530.5 of the Penal Code has to do with identity theft.
Section 14601.1a of the Vehicle Code is driving with a suspended license (you wrote 1460.1a, so I’m just assuming you left the other ’1′ out).
Section 4140 of the Business and Professions Code is unlawful possession of a syringe.
Section 478 of the Penal Code is the punishment for counterfeiting. I’m wondering if maybe you meant 487, which would be grand theft.
In order to research California statutes, you need to know the number of the statute and the code it is in (Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health and Safety Code, etc.).
July 27, 2011
7:59 pm
Criminal justice definition: “Death Eligible Charges”?
July 29, 2011
3:46 am
the bar….refers to the lawyers…..the bar is the group that oversees the lawyers.
whenever you here about a lawyer messing up, you will here someone say…report them to the bar
July 29, 2011
7:58 pm
where do i find the definitions of codes of criminal charges?
i found penal codes for most but not530.5 A,1460.1A,4140 pp or 478..any info for me?
July 29, 2011
8:10 pm
Criminal Justice definition?
The system of law enforcement, the bar, the judiciary, corrections, and probation that is directly involved in the apprehension, prosecution, defense, sentencing, incarceration, and supervision of those suspected of or charged with criminal offenses.
The above is a definition of the Criminal Justice System. My question is what is the bar?
July 29, 2011
11:03 pm
Could criminal charges be brought against John Travolta for the negligent death of his son?
Of course, he is a scientologist (I will not capitalize it; it is a cult), and I am sure this led him to ignoring doctor after doctor that told him that his son did not have some jet-ski named condition (“kawasaki”), but Autism. For ignoring this–and hence ignoring the treatments–and ‘allowing’ his son to perish, couldn’t Travolta and his wife face charges? Don’t you think this is perhaps related to why he was cremated already?
Two notes:
1) I could care less about celebrities. But this is an issue of child abuse, in my and many others’ opinions.
2) I do not believe in criminal justice nor do I believe in criminals. We are all equal human beings with the birthright to do whatever it is we want (as long as it doesn’t hurt others…but even there is where the definition gets perverted). Labels are for soup cans, not people. However, this seems like negligence leading to death which may or may not have been covered up in more than one way.
Please let me know what you guys think and believe.
July 29, 2011
11:28 pm
They could be brought, yes.
In the Bahamas – like in the UK or the US – prosecutors have very broad discretion as to what they charge.
Whether a conviction could be obtained is a different matter. The possible charges – “Negligent homicide” or “Child Neglect” – both require that the defendant have acted in a manner that he “knew”, or “should have known” was likely to result in harm to the child.
The Travolta’s are Scientologists. As such they do not believe that Autism exists. Since they do not believe that Autism exists, it follows that they could not be held to know that not treating it could lead to harm.
The Travoltas were giving their son a cocktail of vitamins and minerals sold by the “Church of Scientology” to treat a church diagnosed syndrome supposedly caused by smelling a carpet cleaner when he was a baby. (Contrary to the poster above, it is not a prescription medication, nor was it administered by a licensed doctor)
Medications are available that a medical doctor would have believed could have controlled his seizures, but the Travoltas simply don’t believe in the existance of the disease that caused the seizures, so they made a decision, based in their own beliefs, to withhold those medications.
That, legally speaking, is not *negligent*. If they believed that the anti-seizure medication would have prevented Jetts seizures, and simply didn’t bother to give it to him, that’s negligent. Not giving him anti-seizure medication because they truly believed it wouldn’t stop the seizures, is not negligent.
While this may seem whacko to reasonable people, negligence charges must be prosecuted in the light of what the *parents* believed at the time. If they truly believed that what they were doing was best for their son then they were not negligent, even if any doctor would have said it was quackery with no basis in science or medicine.
Richard