Homicide Exercise

 Your First Call

At 1:30 am Saturday June 23, you arrive home from a party given in your honor by some of the officers in your department.  Earlier in the evening you received a promotion to Detective in the homicide division.  You get undressed and finally climb into bed after a long day.  Fortunately, you were drinking only club soda and cranberry juice while at the bar because at 1:50 am the telephone rings.  It is the dispatcher.  She tells you that there has been a house fire at 2476 Appalachian Avenue, the Ebersole residence.  You know this residence to be in one of the upscale neighborhoods in your jurisdiction.  You are wondering why she is calling you about a house fire. You are tired and all you can think about is getting some rest.  You ask why you are needed at a fire scene.

The dispatcher replies, “the firefighters discovered a body in the living room of the residence.  They think that there may have been a robbery or something. They said that it doesn’t quite look right.”

“Did anyone contact the coroner and the crime scene techs?”

“No. Do you want me to call them?”

“Yes, but tell them not to disturb anything at the scene until I get there. Also, call my partner if she has not already been contacted. I’m on my way.”

You hang up the phone, get dressed and drive to the scene.  You arrive at 2:32 am.  Your partner arrives at the same time.  Both of you approach the scene which is already roped off with yellow police tape.  The fire is extinguished, and you see that a news van is pulling up to the scene. You grab an officer and tell him to make sure that the media stays away from the scene.

Another uniformed officer immediately approaches you.  He advises that he was the first officer on the scene.  You ask him what he saw when he arrived and what information he has collected. He tells you that he was dispatched to the call at approximately 1:04 am.  Upon arrival, the fire company was already on the scene.  A young man named Tommy Graystone was walking his dog when he smelled smoke and saw flames inside the windows of 2476 Appalachian Avenue.  He ran three blocks to his house and called 911 to report the fire. Tommy is now waiting in the back of the patrol car.

The officer also advises that several neighbors were standing in the street when he and other officers arrived.  He points out the neighbors to you.  Some of the witnesses said that they heard tires screeching a little while before the fire engines arrived.  One witness, Mr. Frank, heard a loud bang at approximately 12:45 am. He said that it sounded like a car backfiring. Also, Mrs. Butterworth saw a dark colored sport utility vehicle driving down the street at a high rate of speed around 1:00 am.

After the fire was extinguished a cursory search of the area surrounding the house was conducted.  The officer tells you that there are several foot impressions in the mud behind the house. There is also a cigarette butt in the grass near the back patio, a broken lock on the rear patio door, and a broken front window.

While you are talking with the officer, the coroner and the crime scene technicians arrive. They begin to videotape and photograph the scene. You ask the coroner to enter the crime scene with you. He indicates that he is waiting until the fire chief tells him that the scene is safe to enter.

  1. What do you think are the responsibilities of the first officer arriving on the scene?

2.  What should be done when additional officers arrive on the scene?

3. How did you respond to the scene (lights and sirens)? What things were you looking for as you approached the scene?

4. Why did you ask the coroner to wait to enter the crime scene with you?

5. What action should you as the investigator take next? Why?

You decide to walk toward the witnesses to conduct preliminary interviews.  You notice that they are all standing in a group across the street from the burned residence.  Some of them are talking and pointing at the smoldering house.

6. Should the witnesses be permitted to stand together in a group and talk about the fire? Why?

As you walk across the street, a reporter approaches you and requests an interview.  With the camera rolling she asks you what happened and specifically if you have identified the body in the house.

7. How do you respond to the reporter’s questions?

As you talk to the reporter, you see a car drive rapidly to the scene and screech to a halt.  A male and a female jump out of the car and begin to run toward the house.  They are screaming frantically.  Three uniformed officers intercept them and hold them outside the crime scene tape.  You overhear the female scream, “I knew that they would do this!”

You and your partner rush to the people and try to calm them down.  You ask who they are.  The female says that her brother lives in that house and that she heard the fire call on her police scanner.  She and her husband rushed to the house and became hysterical when they saw all of the fire engines and police cars.  She asks if her brother is hurt.

8. What should you tell her? Why?

You ask what she meant by her statement that she knew they would do this.  She states that her brother is a corporate executive who was threatening to blow the whistle on other executives who have been embezzling money from shareholders and clients.  She has been worried for his safety for weeks. You ask what company her brother works for. She states that he is with Entex Corporation.  You are familiar with the company because it has frequently been in the news concerning development of a promising new cancer treatment drug.  There has also been news that due to some internal strife within the company the stock has recently taken a tumble.

You ask the woman for her identification.  The name on her driver’s license is Linda Heckman.  Linda continues talking and tells you that her brother Dean suspected that a couple of company executives were embezzling funds from the company and that he was having a private investigator follow two of them.  She does not know if her brother confronted these men yet, but she gives you two names, John Burkhart and Earl Rutherford, as the men he was having followed. You thank Linda for her help and let her know that you will keep her updated as soon as you know anything.

9. How will you follow up with this new information?

10. Should you ask Linda and her husband to remain at the scene at this point? Why?

You decide to interview Tommy Graystone next.  He is still waiting inside the police cruiser.  Upon seeing his face, you realize that you have met Tommy before and you remember where.  Tommy used to cut grass and do garden work for the Ebersole’s last summer.  Dean’s wife Melinda caught him smoking marijuana in the garden shed.  Melinda is a no-nonsense kind of woman who immediately called the police upon discovering Tommy smoking marijuana.  You were the one that interviewed and arrested Tommy.  You remember that Tommy initially lied to you, but after confronting him with the evidence he confessed.  You also remember that the Ebersole’s had a young daughter.  It is now worrying you that neither the wife nor daughter have been seen or heard from.

Before talking with Tommy, you decide to go back and ask Linda if she knows anything about the whereabouts of Melinda and the young girl.  She tells you that Melinda and three-year-old Tabitha have been staying with Melinda’s parents because she and Dean have been having marital problems for the past month.  You are relieved that Melinda and Tabitha are most likely not in the house.  You again thank Linda for the information.

11. Do you try to locate Melinda and Tabitha at this point? Why?

You decide to return to Tommy.  Tommy looks very nervous as you approach the police cruiser.  He obviously remembers you as one the officers that questioned him last summer. If you remember correctly Tommy was released to his parents and required to complete a drug rehabilitation program.

12. Do you mention your previous meeting with Tommy? Explain?

13. How does your prior knowledge of Tommy affect your interview strategy?

You ask Tommy what he saw tonight.  He tells you that he was walking his Labrador Retriever, Holly, at around 1:00AM past Dean Ebersole’s house.  He tells you that he walks his dog this route every night when he gets home from stocking shelves at the local Giant grocery store.  He states that he smelled a lot of smoke.  He looked around and saw flames coming from Mr. Ebersole’s house.  He immediately ran back to his parent’s house about three blocks away and called 911.

14. What seems strange about Tommy’s story?

Tommy tells you that when he returned to the scene of the fire there was already a single firefighter there and he was getting some equipment out of a pick-up truck.  He tells you that the firefighter broke a front window trying to get inside the house just as the rest of the fire department arrived.  You ask Tommy to point out the first firefighter on the scene.  He points out a young man with dark blonde hair.

15. Should you make a point of interviewing this firefighter?  Why?

16. Based on the information you have so far, what do you think happened?

17. What do you think would be different about investigating arson than most other crimes?

As you decide what to do next, the coroner calls you over and tells you that he is ready to enter the residence.  You tell him that you will be right there.

18. What things do you need to remember to do during your examination of the crime scene?

19. List and describe at least three methods of recording a crime scene?

The Ring Of Gyges Plato

SophiaOmni 1 www.sophiaomni.org

The Ring Of Gyges Plato

They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.

Now that those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law. The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges, the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the King of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he, stooping and looking in, saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the King; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outward and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result—when he turned the collet inward he became invisible, when outward he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the Queen, and with her help conspired against the King and slew him and took the kingdom.

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely

 

 

SophiaOmni 2 www.sophiaomni.org

take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with anyone at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever anyone thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine anyone obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookerson to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice. Enough of this.

Now, if we are to form a real judgment of the life of the just and unjust, we must isolate them; there is no other way; and how is the isolation to be effected? I answer: Let the unjust man be entirely unjust, and the just man entirely just; nothing is to be taken away from either of them, and both are to be perfectly furnished for the work of their respective lives. First, let the unjust be like other distinguished masters of craft; like the skilful pilot or physician, who knows intuitively his own powers and keeps within their limits, and who, if he fails at any point, is able to recover himself. So let the unjust make his unjust attempts in the right way, and lie hidden if he means to be great in his injustice (he who is found out is nobody): for the highest reach of injustice is, to be deemed just when you are not. Therefore I say that in the perfectly unjust man we must assume the most perfect injustice; there is to be no deduction, but we must allow him, while doing the most unjust acts, to have acquired the greatest reputation for justice. If he have taken a false step he must be able to recover himself; he must be one who can speak with effect, if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required by his courage and strength, and command of money and friends. And at his side let us place the just man in his nobleness and simplicity, wishing, as Aeschylus says, to be and not to seem good. There must be no seeming, for if he seem to be just he will be honored and rewarded, and then we shall not know whether he is just for the sake of justice or for the sake of honor and rewards; therefore, let him be clothed in justice only, and have no other covering; and he must be imagined in a state of life the opposite of the former. Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst; then he will have been put to the proof; and we shall see whether he will be affected by the fear of infamy and its consequences. And let him continue thus to the hour of death; being just and seeming to be unjust. When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one of justice and the other of injustice, let judgment be given which of them is the happier of the two.

Heavens! my dear Glaucon, I said, how energetically you polish them up for the decision, first one and then the other, as if they were two statues.

I do my best, he said. And now that we know what they are like there is no difficulty in tracing out the sort of life which awaits either of them. This I will proceed to describe; but as you may think the description a little too coarse, I ask you to suppose, Socrates, that the words which follow are not mine. Let me put them into the mouths of the eulogists of injustice: They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound—will have his eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled. Then he will understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be, just; the words of Aeschylus may be more truly spoken of the unjust than of the just. For the unjust is pursuing a reality; he does not live with a view to appearances—he wants to be really unjust and not to seem only—“His mind has a soil deep and fertile, Out of which spring his prudent counsels.”

 

 

SophiaOmni 3 www.sophiaomni.org

In the first place, he is thought just, and therefore bears rule in the city; he can marry whom he will, and give in marriage to whom he will; also he can trade and deal where he likes, and always to his own advantage, because he has no misgivings about injustice; and at every contest, whether in public or private, he gets the better of his antagonists, and gains at their expense, and is rich, and out of his gains he can benefit his friends, and harm his enemies; moreover, he can offer sacrifices, and dedicate gifts to the gods abundantly and magnificently, and can honor the gods or any man whom he wants to honor in a far better style than the just, and therefore he is likely to be dearer than they are to the gods. And thus, Socrates, gods and men are said to unite in making the life of the unjust better than the life of the just.

 

Plato. “Republic.” The Dialogues of Plato. Vol. 2. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1892.

© SophiaOmni, 2001. The specific electronic form of this text is copyright. Permission is granted to print out copies for educational purposes and for personal use only. No permission is granted for commercial use.

Assignment – Criminal Law, Criminal Culpability, And Criminal Liability Overview

  1. Week 4 Assignment – Criminal Law, Criminal Culpability, and Criminal Liability
    Overview
    According to the text, criminal law is aimed at the misbehavior that falls below society’s norms and values. The burden of enforcing criminal law and maintaining public order and public safety falls to local, state, and even the federal government; all help to shape and prescribe conduct in the United States. Each state is specifically responsible for the maintenance of public order and public safety within their borders. The federal government is responsible for regulating criminal conduct delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution. Each branch of government, at the state and federal level, must proscribe the required elements of each crime charged and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt per the Due Process Clause and other constitutional requirements. In this assignment, you will explore criminal law, criminal culpability and its limitations, and what is required for criminal liability and punishment.
    Instructions
    Write a 2–3-page paper in which you:

    • Explain the goals of criminal law and why these goals are still important today.
    • Explain the connection between state police power and the limitations of this power imposed by the Constitution.
    • Identify the differences between state and federal jurisdiction, when it comes to criminal law, and what is meant by due process of law.
    • Describe the manner in which the four goals of criminal law are met by requiring and proving both a mental element and physical act beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Use at least three high-quality academic references. Choose sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate. Cite each source listed on your source page at least one time within your assignment. For help with research, writing, and citation, access the library or review library guides.
    • Write clearly and concisely in a manner that is grammatically correct and generally free of spelling, typographical, formatting, and/or punctuation errors.
    • This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
      The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
    • Analyze criminal law, police power, the goals of criminal law and culpability/liability.
  2. By submitting this paper, you agree: (1) that you are submitting your paper to be used and stored as part of the SafeAssign™ services in accordance with the Blackboard Privacy Policy; (2) that your institution may use your paper in accordance with your institution’s policies; and (3) that your use of SafeAssign will be without recourse against Blackboard Inc. and its affiliates.

Is Deterrence The Answer?

Watch:

Rape  is a heinous crime. Some have reported that they would rather be  murdered than raped because they do not want to live with the trauma and  shame of being raped. Needless to say, rape is a serious crime that  deserves harsh punishment. Brock Turner was a student athlete at  Stanford University. In March 2016, he was convicted of felony sexual  assault for violating an unconscious woman, which carried a potential  prison term of up to 14 years. Santa Clara County Superior Court judge  Aaron Persky handed down a sentence of 6 months in jail, 3 years of  probation, and mandatory participation in a sex offender rehabilitation  program and required Turner to register as a sex offender. Comparatively  speaking, this sentence was lenient, and many critics considered it a  slap on the wrist for such a serious offense. Even so, Turner appealed  his sentence and sought to have his conviction overturned in 2018. His  appeal was denied. This case resulted in the recall of Judge Persky by  voters in 2018.

Using a minimum of 350 words  and a maximum of 500, address the following:

  1. Put yourself in the victim’s shoes. Did this punishment fit the crime, or was it a miscarriage of justice?
  2. Do you think a sentence such as Turner’s provides enough of a deterrent threat to dissuade sexual assault?
  3. Are rapists or potential rapists responsive to such deterrence threats? Why or why not?

*Do not forget to use a minimum of two academic references and  include them in APA formatting