Talk:Criminal law/Archive 1

message: In monarchies the criminal offence may be regarded as an offence against the king or the "king's peace" or the like rather than "society as a whole."  This should be mentioned. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:09, 28 August 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Monarchies

message: The use of the of homocide in the mens reas is muddled.  To state that the act is "unlawful" killing includes the intent in the definition.  (ITs in part the intent that makes it unlawful.)  In addition, the definition of malice aforethought is over simplified.  In short, theft might make a better example. --24.126.240.60 01:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Homicide does not have to be an unlawful killing. Homicide is a killing of a person by another (s). In fact, murder is homicide without mitigation, justification or excuse. MollyBloom 02:02-02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mens reas muddled

message: Writing totally outside my normal scope of activity, I composed criminalization. Would some of our legal minds kindly glance over this entry and see if it is sustainable? JFW | T@lk 21:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have selected an interesting topic. Much of what you say can be both sustained and justified. I did, however, feel compelled to add a section, beneath your treatment, getting further into the (I almost said thicket!) dilemma of political ontology -- i.e., the question of man's political or apolitical nature. I did not, however, consider this the place to question whether that distinction can be sustained. Many others of greater authority than I are working toward the solution of this problem. But it may be said here that, regardless of whether the universalist or particularist strains win out, the question of global crime enforcement has never been more pressing. James Seneca 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminalization 

message: —The unsigned section heading above was added by  02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMBEZZELMENT 

message: The little organizational chart on the side of criminal law pages does not include a catigory of crimes against the Government, such as treason.
Clearly treason is a crime, yet it doesn't fit into the catigories provided (Crimes against person, property, Justice), shouldn't such a classification be added?  24.2.226.231 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes Against the Government 

message: How about drug possesion crimes? I couldn't find anything that leads me to these types of crimes either. However if you ask me, these are societies crimes against human rights.
Drug crimes are found in California's Health and Safety Codes, for example. So they're crimes against the health and safety.. of society? It should clearly be here for at least in the US significant numbers are incarcerated for drug crimes.
Uh.. -- AllegedFelon032 71.104.156.240 12:37, 14 May through 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes against... society? 

message: The Fifth Amendment requirement of a Grand Jury & Indictment is not binding on the states. States are not required to use grand jury indictments. State felony cases begin either through the filing of a document with the court called a Complaint or through the finding of the Indictment. I edited this section accordingly.MollyBloom 07:30, 21 May & 04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Felony Complaints

message: This article seems incredibly US-biased, almost as though there were no criminal law apparatus for any other country. Of course, every item on this discussion page seems pretty heavily US-focused as well... I realize that the US is the Land of Lawyers, but am I missing a more general page for non-nation-specific criminal law somewhere (i.e. one that isn't full of references to the US Constitution and criminal codes), or should this page (or complex of pages, if the rest of the Law section is similarly written) be renamed US Criminal Law and a more general page or pages produced?  At the very least, if this is meant to be a general entry, giving the US stuff an explicit section in it and keeping constitutional specifics confined to that might be a good start.  -- Arvedui 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is so US-centric that it would be difficult to amend it to take account of the topic in general. I suggest it is renamed to Criminal Law (United States) and a new article started to cover the subject without bias. Reference could then be made to this article in the usual manner - "See main article etc...". I can't understand how articles of this calibre come to be written. Presumably the editors of this article are reasonably intelligent, and yet it's as if they don't realise there's a whole world out there, beyond the USA. Arcturus 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is such an appalling example that I decided to add a missing info template. Re-naming might still be the best solution, though. Harry R 14:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  would be more appropriate. Caveat lector 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US-centric?

message: I removed the code of Babylon. You write: "Criminal law in the United States, Canada, Australia, and many other countries is based on English common law. These, and other legal systems, are also influenced by early written codes, such as the Hammurabi Code."
When did the Hammurabi Code of Mesopotamia influence the western legal systems?
Where did you read that bulls? The first written code that really influenced the British law -and other western legal systems- was created by the Romans and only consisted of Roman "Mores", "Leges Regiae" and XII tables! Jack 12:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't suppose Roman law was influenced by Hammurabi's Code? bd2412 T 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not directly, the Romans had no direct knowledge of it and neither did the world until AD 1901 when it was found by archaeologists.  It might well have influenced other codes that influenced other codes, that were intermediate in time and space and influenced the Romans, such as maybe the Hittites, Greeks and Hebrews codes, but no one has proven this and we can't just make up our own unsourced theories here. Til Eulenspiegel 13:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, for some reason, reminds me of Ozymandius - but everything that happens (on that scale, at least) influences everything that comes after. bd2412 T 15:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hammurabi (or Hammurapi) Codex 

message: I'm expanding the main subjects here on the criminal law page, starting with the part on criminal conduct. New mens rea and actus reus sections. p.s. I applaud the removal of the codex hammurabi reference, as above. :) Wikidea 08:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People will probably notice quite a lot has recently gone up. I've left a few section stubs for the time being, if anyone wants to make a start on summaries there. Wikidea 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More stuff 

message: I've spent a lot of time trying to clean up this article so it fits better the standards of WP.  However, I do not pretend to be an expert at all on criminal law. So if I made some mistake in removing or editing things too much, could someone who is more knowledgable in criminal please correct me?  I apologize if I have changed the article too drastically. Stanselmdoc 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I can't separate in the other sections what's changes and what isn't - and I request help if this is felt needed. Drtillberg, there were 2 main edit "chunks", one on July 29th, which I have done as best I can see - but the "chunk" before, 22nd-24th, looks like it was moving the structure about, rather than changing wording. (?) I see no problem in changing the text on the "goals" section - and the history section is a bit scant too, so please go ahead and change there as is felt appropriate (or tell me and I'll do it). For defences, this is a part that doesn't seem to need changes and it didn't look like there were any (apart from necessity, which we're over I think). For offences, these are still listed as stubs and need case references and statutes to go in, and the body isn't so crucial until it's expanded. Please have a look at those Amazon pages above again, or any good textbook that you've got to hand. Wikidea 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further changes

message: what is the penalty for first time (i got caught with folding knife no more than over 4inchby half a inch)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.68.211 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  weapons possession 4th degree misd 

message: Doesn't seem to mention compulsory labour. James500 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal sanctions