Criminal Law Paper Essay

atomic number 101 v. King, 569 U.S., on June 3, 2013 the United States imperative motor hotel ruled that it is not a violation of the fourth amendment right by having your deoxyribonucleic acid swabbed while organism booked into a detention facility. And that a simple swab on the informal cheek was no different than taking a film or being finger printed during the booking process. This case came to be aft(prenominal) an psyche was arrested and booked for assault and during the booking process the exclusive had the inner cheek swabbed as set about of the booking process as part of Maryland DNA Collection Act (Maryland Act). After this individual DNA was processed per the Maryland Act, the DNA distiched that of an unsolved rape from years earlier. Be shake of the match DNA, this individual argued that his fourth amendment right was violated. What interested me about this case was the taking of the DNA during the booking process. I have al modalitys thought that openhanded a DNA sample was something that was voluntarily given, rather than being forced. Or if there was a salute order to obtain ones DNA.I know that m whatsoever states across the country have been creating laws regarding the accruement of DNA from individuals who are involved in the criminal justice system. rough states pucker DNA during the booking process, while other states only collect when you are a repeat offender. However, I understand that deterring criminal offense and criminals is the briny goal behind these laws and agree that taking this step will cause for individual criminals to think twice before they live a life-style of crime. I believe these laws allow for some sort of closure for victims of crimes and see that justice was done in regards to the Maryland v. King Supreme solicit ruling. Criminal indebtedness is something that is needed to express that the individual being criminate is guiltinessy of a crime. Therefore, to ensure that a person is criminally re asonable the court system needs to prove that the individual did load the crime being accused of and that the individualbeing accused had the criminal mentality to commit the crime.Accomplice liability is when the court finds an individual criminally probable for crimes that were committed by a different person. If an individual participates, helps, or plays any role when another individual is committing a crime. This individual may be charged as a accomplice to the crime. Because of the nature of the Supreme Court case that I selected neither criminal liability nor accomplice liability pertained to this case. This case was about an individual whos past caught up with him, aft(prenominal) thinking that he got away with rape. During this case the individual never denied guilt for the rape but argued his rights were violated by the state law, which I regain was used as a tactic to get out of the sentences that was compel by the court. The elements of a crime are the facts that n eed to be prove in order to find the accused guilty of a crime. ahead an individual is found guilty of a crime, the prosecution must line of battle the This evidence must be credible and sufficient enough to prove without a doubt that the accused did in fact commit a crime and that each of the elements of the crime exists.There are three major elements of crime that are considered during this process. Mens Rae is when the mental elements of the accused are looked at as it relates to the mark of committing a crime. The defendants state of mind during the crime can be used to prove or disapprove the intent of the crime. Actus Reus is a criminal act or an unlawful confession of an act. fundamentally an individual who is accused must profess their guilt of committing a crime. An individual cannot be found guilty of thinking of committing a crime. Concurrence is the combination of Mens Rae and Actus Reus when they happen at the same time. The criminal intent must go alongside the c riminal act, or be connected some way to the crime. Actus Reus and Mens Rae do not directly relate to the case that I selected. It is my tactual sensation that occurrence is the best fit for my case. In my opinion for an individual to commit a crime of rape intent is always present and the individual who is accused never denied the charges against him, but rather that his fourth amendment right had been violated.ReferencesSupreme Court of the United States, Maryland v. King June 3, 2013 retrieved August 10, 2014 from http//www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf Freeman, C.G.(2013). Supreme court cases of interest. Criminal Justice, 28(1), 46-49. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http//search.proquest.com/docview/1353616933?accountid=458