Criminology Essays Fingerprints Science Crime

Criminology Essays Fingerprints Science Crime Fingerprints Science Crime â€Å"Discuss the importance of fingerprints within forensic science citing appropriate examples† Fingerprints have always been a form of identification. This is probably the reason why fingerprints have supplanted most methods of identifying criminals that deny ever being arrested or even committing the crime. Identifying fingerprints has become a science and it also stands out to many other forensic sciences ( www.onin.com). The science of fingerprints, has helped many goverments around the world, presenting them with correct discovery of criminals (www.onin.com). There are millions of people on this planet and never have 2 fingerprints been found that are alike within humans and automated computer comparisons (www.onin.com). No 2 humans have the same finger, palm or footprint. These parts of the human body have ridges that are constantly broken up by endings or forks, these are called characteristics (www.south-wales.police.uk). Every person has unique distributions of the characteristics that build up in womb and through out life in general, these characteristics stay the same for a time after death too so it makes identifying a body possible (www.south-wales.police.uk). People have often tried to alter their fingerprints with different methods like cutting their fingerprints, burning the skin with acid but that doesn’t work because, superficial skin damage is repaired by the body so the same ridges come back with the new skin that forms (www.south-wales.police.uk). Fingerprints are formed by our skin and our skin is made out of two layers, dermis and epidermis (www.south-wales.police.uk). The epidermis is a thin layer and it is a protective cover of the dermis which is the thicker layer of skin that contains sweat and sebaceous glands (www.south-wales.police.uk). Now a sweat gland, consists of salt, water and urea and the sebaceous gland releases oils on the skin surface (www.south-wales.police.uk). When we come in contact with something, we leave a mark because of the products that are produced by the glands, resulting in a fingerprint mark (www.south-wales.police.uk). When our fingers are dirty or even oily, then our fingerprints can be visible (www.south-wales.police.uk). When going to a crime scene, you often stumble upon fingerprints. Fingerprints, are very valuable evidence when identifying a suspect. If the prints are in sequence, you can very easily identify the hand or finger of origin. Unfortunately, fingerprints collected at a crime scene are rarely in sequence and customarily incomplete as a consequence, it is very difficult to define which hand left the print. So these types of fingerprints are called latent fingerprints (www.south-wales.police.uk). Now latent fingerprints can be left on all surfaces including skin and there are different ways to detect and make them visible like different powders, alternate lights and lasers (www.south-wales.police.uk). There are more types of prints like visible prints, that are also referred to as patent prints and these prints are apparent to the naked eye because they are normally found in blood or something that would make a mold of the print (www.virtualsciencefair.org). When a finger comes in contact with dirt, ink or grease and then the finger touches a smooth surface then there is a visible impression of the ridge (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Another type of prints are called impressed prints or plastic prints, these prints are basically an indentation that is left in a soft surface like wax, paint or clay, they are visible prints that you can look at and photograph (www.virtualsciencefair.org). There are different patterned fingerprints, one of these is called Arches (www.virtualsciencefair.org). 5 % of fingerprint patterns are arches, the ridges of the skin go from side to side without making a backward turn (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Normally, there is no delta in an arch outline but where there a delta, no re-curving ridge must interfere among the core and delta points (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Even with in patterns, there are pattern, there are four kinds of arch patterns: plain arches, radial arches, ulnar arches and tented arches (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Plain arches have an smooth run of ridges from one area to the other of the outline, no â€Å"major up thrusts† and the ridges go into on one part of the impression, and run out the other with a increase or wave in the middle (www.virtualsciencefair.org). The ridges of radial arches incline towards the thumb; they have one delta and no re-curving ridges (www.virtualsciencefair.org). On ulnar arches, the ridges incline towards the small finger, they also have one delta and no re-curving ridges (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Tented arches have an angle, an up thrust, or two of the three basic characteristics of the loop. They don’t flow the same way that plain arches do and above all have â€Å"significant up thrusts† in the ridges near the middle that position themselves on both sides of a spine towards which the bordering ridges meet and come out to form tents (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Another fingerprint pattern are the Loops, they occur in about 60-70 % of the fingerprint patterns encountered (www.virtualsciencefair.org). The ridge enters on either side of the impression, re-curve, and touches or crosses the line that forms from the delta to the core and finishes on or in the course of the side where the ridge or ridges entered (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Each loop outline has one delta and one core and has a ridge count (www.virtualsciencefair.org). â€Å" Radial loops are named after the radius, a bone in the forearm that joins the hand on the same side as the thumb† (www.virtualsciencefair.org). The run of the pattern in radial loops runs in the route of the radius (toward the thumb) (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Radial loops are not very frequent and on most occasions radial loops will be found on the index fingers (www.virtualsciencefair.org). â€Å"Ulnar loops are named after the ulna, a bone in the forearm† (www.virtualsciencefair.org). â€Å"The ulna is on the same side as the little finger and the flow of the pattern in a ulnar loop runs in the direction of the ulna (toward the little finger)† (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Whorls are found in about 25-35 % of fingerprint patterns dealt with (www.virtualsciencefair.org). â€Å"In a whorl, some of the ridges make a turn through at least one circuit† (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Any fingerprint outline that has 2 or more deltas is considered a whorl pattern (www.virtualsciencefair.org). There are four types of whorl patterns, Plain whorls that have of one or more ridges which make a complete circuit with two deltas, and causes an imaginary line drawn and at least one re-curving ridge within the inner outline area is cut or touched (www.virtualsciencefair.org).† â€Å"Central pocket loop whorls have at least one re-curving ridge or an obstruction at right angles to the line of flow, with two deltas, between which when an imaginary line is drawn, no re-curving ridge within the pattern area is cut or touched† (www.virtualsciencefair.org). â€Å"Central pocket loop whorl ridges make one complete circuit which may be spiral, oval, circular or any variant of a circle† (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Double loop whorls are made of two separate and individual loop formations with two different and distinct shoulders for each core, two deltas and one or more ridges which make, a complete circuit (www.virtualsciencefair.org). â€Å"Among the two at least one re-curving ridge within the inner pattern area is cut when an imaginary line is drawn† (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Accidental whorls are made of two dissimilar types of patterns with the exclusion of the plain arch, they have two or more deltas or a pattern which have some of the requirements for two or more different types (www.virtualsciencefair.org). Crime scene fingerprints need to be matched with fingerprints already in a file, if the suspect has never been convicted, then his fingerprints will not have been recorded so they cant compare them (www.south-wales.police.uk). For this reason, when a suspect is charged, they get fingerprinted and if there are 16 points of similarity with the prints at the crime scene it can be presented in court as evidence (www.south-wales.police.uk). Serious issues of fingerprint fraud have started to come to light; many people have been facing jail time because they have told them that their fingerprints have been found at a crime scene. In 2004 Brandon Mayfield was wrongly accused for the terrorist act in Madrid. They told him that his fingerprints were found on a explosives bag that was used to bomb a train in Madrid which resulted in the loss of 191 lives (www.news.bbc.co.uk). This news was shocking since the prime suspect hadn’t left the country in 10 years and that he had never visited Spain (www.news.bbc.co.uk). The suspect was at the time 38 years old and served 8 years in the military army (www.news.bbc.co.uk). He lived in Portland Oregon U.S.A (www.news.bbc.co.uk). He had never been arrested until the day the F.B.I showed up at his house and took him away (www.news.bbc.co.uk). At the end of this, it was proven that the fingerprint did not belong to Mayfield but to an Algerian man said to have been linked to al-Qaeda (www.news.bbc.co.uk). Fingerprints within forensic science is very important even thought there is a very big debate on whether or not it is the right way to go about crime scenes. We have seen the different types of fingerprints, what they are made from, we have gone through a case where fingerprints where not substantial evidence and put an innocent man in prison for a while. So with this I conclude that fingerprints are important the art of fingerprints just needs to be perfect so that the real criminals get what they deserve. References Hodierne, R. (2004) Military lawyers defend civil liberties [on line]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4066775.stm [Accessed on 15 November 2007] Available from: http://www.south-wales.police.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=8n2=253n3=1028 [Accessed on 13 November 2007] Moore, G. History of fingerprints [on line]. Available from: http://www.onin.com/fp/fphistory.html [Accessed 15 November 2007] Available from: http://www.virtualsciencefair.org/2004/fren4j0/public_html/types_prints.htm [Accessed 12 November 2007] Inderjit Singh, P.K. Chattopadhyay and R.K. Garg.(1995). Forensic Science International Volume 152, Issues 2-3, 10 September 2005, Pages 205-208

Evidence of Witness Statement

Evidence of Witness Statement The evidence that the prosecution wants to adduce at trial is the police statement made by Bennie which shows that he had seen Avril dealing drugs many times. This evidence wants to be used by the prosecution to prove Avrils involvement with the dealing of drugs as well as her involvement with the Black and reds local gang. Before the prosecution can adduce the evidence, there are a series of factors that needs to be considered and the first is relevance. What can be regarded as relevant is something that applies to the matter in question; affording something to the purpose and something that is legally sufficient.[1] Bennies evidence can be said to be relevant because it does apply to the matter in question which is Avrils drugs offence. The second factor the prosecution needs to consider before adducing Bennies evidence is the competence and compellability of Bennie. In the issue stated Bennie can be seen to be Avrils husband which puts him under the category of a spouse. A spouse per Glover is a person who is lawfully married to the accused at the time when he or she is called to give evidence.[2] In the issue, it was seen that Bennie and Avril had recently separated. They are still legally married regardless of the separation factor. It was not stated that they were divorced or the marriage was annulled, therefore Bennie still falls under the category of a spouse. There is a general rule which can be found in s53(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA) 1999[3] that all witnesses are presumed to be competent[4]. In the application of this rule there is a presumption that Bennie is a competent witness for the prosecution. In regards to compellability, a spouse is generally not compellable for the prosecution unless the exceptions that are set out in s80(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984[5] are met. Relating the exceptions listed out in s80(3) of PACE 1984[6] to the issue, the type of offence that Avril is being charged with are drugs offences and as such Bennie does not fall under any of the exceptions which make him a non-compellable witness to the prosecution. It has been established that Bennie is a non-compellable witness which means he is not legally obliged to give evidence but has the choice to do so. This shows that he can choose to testify in court, however the prosecution can admit Bennies police statement as evidence through a hearsay exception which can be found in the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003. The case of R v L [2009][7] can be used in regards to this issue. In this case the Witness who was a spouse could not be compelled to testify against her husband however a pre-trial statement which was a police statement was admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule[8]. According to LT choo hearsay evidence is an out of court statement that is being adduced in court as evidence of the matter stated in the statement.[9] Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls under the exceptions in CJA 2003[10]. For the evidence to be admissible under the witness unavailability exception three conditions must be met which can be found in Section 116 (1)(a) (1)(c) CJA 2003. It is important to note that S116(1)(c) shows that hearsay evidence can be admissible if it satisfies any of the five conditions stated in subsection 2[11]. One of the conditions that is shown in subsection (2)(e) of the CJA 2003 relates to fear of a witness. In relations to the issue, Bennie refuses to testify in court and leading up to his refusal it was seen that he had a bruising to his face. An assumption can be made that he is refusing to testify because of fear and as such the prosecution can adduce Bennies evidence under s116 as a hearsay exception provided all the cond itions are satisfied. Other than the hearsay exception, the part for Bennie could also make an application for a special measure direction (SMD). Bennie refuses to testify and has a bruising to the face. This brings about an assumption of fear which makes him a vulnerable witness and vulnerable witnesses can make applications for SMDs. There are three stages in which SMDs can be granted. The first stage is looking at the eligibility of the witness which can be found in s16 17 YJCEA 1999[12]. The second and third stage can be found in s19(2)(a) and (b) YJCEA 1999. Looking at Bennie he could be eligible for an SMD on the grounds of fear or distress about testifying[13] which falls under s17 YJCEA 1999[14]. If the courts are satisfied that Bennie meets all the stages, the application will be successful and Bennie will be able to testify through an SMD. SMDs that are available to Bennie are screening[15] which is stated in s23 YJCEA 1999 or video recorded evidence in chief[16] which is shown in s27(1) (3) Y JCEA 1999. In conclusion, Bennie is a competent and a non-compellable witness and as such he has no legal obligation to testify in court. However, the prosecution can pass Bennies police statement through the hearsay exception of witness unavailability if he can satisfy all the conditions set out in the provision. B. The evidence that the prosecution wants to adduce are Avrils two previous convictions for theft and two previous convictions for drugs offences involving possession of marijuana with intent to supply. The prosecution wishes to use this evidence to prove that Avril committed the drugs offences she is being charged with. The evidential issue that this raises is bad character evidence. Bad character is defined is s98 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003. The key factors of the definition are evidence of, or a disposition towards misconduct on his part, other than evidence which (a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence charged (b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.[17] In assessing the two previous convictions of theft for Avril the evidence has nothing to do with the alleged facts of the current offence that is being charged. The previous offence and the alleged facts are not so closely connected as defined in the case of R v Tirnaveanu [2007][18]. Also, it is not in relations to the investigation or prosecution of that particular offence[19] which is the drugs offences. This shows that her two previous convictions for theft is a bad character evidence which can be admitted through one of the gateways under s101(1)(a) (g) CJA 2003 and expanded on in s102-106 CJA 2003. The first gateway that should always be used is gateway D which can be found under s103 CJA 2003. Gateway D is the relevance to important issue between the defendant and the prosecution[20]. The prosecutions evidence of a defendants bad character is admissible based on its relevance to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution[21]. An important matter means a matter of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole[22] as defined in s112 CJA 2003. Section 103(1)(a) is in regards to propensity to commit the offences of the kind that the defendant is being charged with. In the application of this provision to Avrils previous convictions for theft it could be said that she does have propensity for theft but the crime of her previous convictions are not relevant to the matter in issue because they fall under different categories of offences. A case that relates well to s103(1)(a) is Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] [23]. The defendant was charged with theft of goods from a shed, and he had three previous convictions for shoplifting which were admitted on grounds for showing propensity[24]; the offences were similar. Section 103(1)(b) also does not apply to her previous convictions because the provision refers to the propensity to be untruthful which has no obvious similarity to her previous convictions. Therefore, the bad character evidence cannot be admitted through gateway D. If this cannot be admitted through gateway D then Gateway C can be looked at which is under s101(1)(c) CJA 2003. Gateway C is the important explanatory evidence[25]. This gateway reflects the common-law rule which permits background or explanatory material where the account otherwise to be placed before the court would be incomplete and incomprehensible.[26] This simply means in order for the jury to better understand the facts in issue the background evidence should be allowed. A case that refers to this is Phillips [2003] [27]. In Phillips[28], the evidence of the defendants previous threats to kill his wife when he was on trial for her murder were admissible as background evidence[29]. Referring to Avril, her previous convictions for theft cannot be allowed as background evidence to the drugs offences because they fall under different categories. Therefore, her previous convictions for theft is inadmissible under the gateway D and C. It was seen that she also had two previous convictions involving possession of marijuana and intent to supply. Her two previous convictions for drugs offences was seen to be done in the year 2011 and 2014. Her previous convictions have nothing to do with the offence charged. Firstly, the evidence is relevant. The previous offence and the current offence is not so closely connected because there is quite a gap between the years of her previous offence and the current offence; no nexus in time. It is also not an evidence of misconduct relating to the investigation or the prosecution of the offence, therefore it is a bad character evidence. Going through gateway D her previous convictions involving drugs offences show propensity to commit the kind of offence charged.[30] The test for propensity was established in R v Hanson.[31]Where the propensity to commit the offence is relied upon there are three questions to be considered. (i) Does the history of conviction(s) establish a propensit y to commit offences of the kind charged? (ii) Does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged? (iii) Is it unjust to rely on the conviction(s) of the same description or category; and, in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if they are admitted?[32] Relating this to Avrils two previous convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to supply, her history of her past convictions does show a propensity to commit the kind of offence charged. This is because in 2011 she was convicted for drugs offences as well as in 2014 for the same crime. Avril being in possession of marijuana and intent to supply has a strong similar link to her drugs offence that she is currently being charged with. It can be said that her propensity makes it more likely that she did commit the offence charged because they all share similar features which means there is a strong MO link. Similar features such as the type of offence, the possession of illegal drugs and intent to supply. It will be just to rely on her previous convictions because it shows a high possibility of reoffending based on her propensity. Avrils previous convictions meet all the Hanson criteria which means her previous convictions shows a propensity for her to commit the kind of offen ce charged therefore gateway D is applied. In conclusion, Avrils previous conviction for theft is bad character evidence but it could meet the threshold for gateway D and C which shows the evidence to be inadmissible. Nonetheless, her previous convictions for drugs offences met the criteria for gateway D which means it can be admitted as bad character evidence for the prosecution. C. The evidence is Avrils confession and the prosecution wants to adduce this evidence to prove that she committed the drugs offence that she is being charged with. The evidence is relevant because it is in relations to the issue and the drugs offence charged. The evidential issue that this raises is the admissibility of confession. Section 82(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 gives definition to a confession. According to McAlhone and Stockdale A statement is a confession if, whether oral or written or made by conduct (e.g by video re-enactment), it is at least in part, adverse to its makers interests.[33] It is important to note that confessions are an out of court statement that the defendant made and the prosecution wants to admit it for its truth. This makes the evidence hearsay and as such it is generally inadmissible but there are exceptions to the hearsay rule which is contained in two provisions. The statutory provisions that regulates the admissibility of confessions is s76 and s78 of PACE 1984. S76(1) of PACE lays out the admissibility of the confession made by the defendant as evidence against him/her. The key factors for admissibility under section 76(1) of PACE is (i) the confession should be relevant to any matter in issue and (ii) it is not excluded by the court in pursuance of s76.[34] The court have a discretion to exclude a confession if it falls under the provision of s76(2) of PACE and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession does not fall under s76(2) of PACE[35]. S76(2)(a) refers to a confession being obtained by oppression. Section 76(8) of PACE explains what constitutes oppression but this is only a partial definition. In R v Fulling[36] oppression was given the oxford dictionary meaning; the oxford dictionary defines oppression as prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.[37] While Lord Lane in the case of Fulling[38]gave a description of what s76(2)(b) covers. He believed that the confession must be shown to be voluntary in the sense that it was not obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, excited or held out by a person in authority[39] s76(2)(b) looks at the unreliability of a confession, hence looking at the circumstances of anything said and done on the occasion of confession that would make it unreliable; it also includes things not said and not done which could include omissions, breaches of PACE and associated Codes of Practice[40]. There needs to be a causal link between what was said and done in the circumstance and the confession. Relating this to the issue, Avril made a confession which could be admissible under s76(1) of PACE 1984 because the confession is relevant to the matter in issue. The second factor is the no exclusion by the courts. S76(2)(a) does not apply to Avrils case because it can be seen from the facts of the issue that her confession was not obtained by oppression; there was no exercise of authority or torture or inhuman and degrading treatment done to Avril. Since Avrils confession does not fall under oppression s76(2)(b) can be used. The first fact of the issue was that P.C. Pumpkin forgot to issue the police caution before she was interviewed. The failure to give a police caution is a breach of code C under PACE 1984 as seen in Doolan [1988][41]. The second fact of the issue was Avrils solicitor was not called because of the confusion in the change of police shifts. The right to a solicitor for the accused is found in s56 of PACE 1984[42]. Failure to provide access to a solicitor as required by this provision could lead a person of low IQ who knows little about the process to confess but this may have less effect upon a person who can cope with an interview situation and is aware of his legal rights[43] as seen in R v Alladice (1988)[44]. There is an assumption that Avril is aware of her legal rights because she has had past convictions of the similar offence, therefore her not having a solicitor has little effect on her confession. The third fact of the issue was that Avril was not given any food and drink for 24 hours and became claustrophobic in the police cell and is also diabetic. Her confession is unreliable because she was not given proper rest[45] which can also include the provision of food and drink. A police misconduct is not required. In Walker [1998] [46]the police were unaware of the mental condition of the defendant[47]. The police were unaware of Avrils claustrophobia as well as her diabetes so the police misconduct in regards to this cannot be relied upon. Nonetheless code C does require the police to attend to detained person if the need for attention is urgent. Another provision that protects the accused from unfair proceedings and unfair evidence is s78 of PACE 1984[48]. This provision shows exclusion of unfair evidence by the court if it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings[49]. A breach of PACE or the codes may lead to an exclusion, however the breach should be significant and substantial[50]. It will not be appropriate to exclude a confession based on a breach which is inconsequential, for example, failure to provide a solicitor[51]. It was clear that there was a breach of code when the police did not give Avril access to a solicitor but based on an assumption that Avril could handle an interview situation because she has had previous dealings with police interviews from her past convictions the breach may not be substantial enough for the court to exclude it. In conclusion, Avrils confession is unreliable under s76(2)(b) of PACE which can be excluded by the court. This shows that her confession cannot be admissible under s76 of PACE. Nevertheless, it can be admissible under s78 of PACE because her confession was not unfair evidence, therefore it is highly likely the courts will not exclude this, subsequently the prosecution may adduce the evidence through this provision. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) Christina McAlhone and Michael Stockdale, Nutshells, Evidence in a nutshell (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2002) Richard Glover, Murphy on Evidence (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2015) CASES Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] EWCA Crim 824 R v Alladice (1988) 87 Cr App R 380 R v Davis [2008] EWCA Crim 1156 R v Doolan [1988] Crim LR 747 R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65 R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 R v L [2009] 1 WLR 626, CA R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 R v Trussler [1988] Crim LR 446 R v Walker [1998] Crim LR 211 STATUTES Criminal Justice Act 2003 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 WEBSITES Oxforddictionary.com Oppression, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/oppression accessed 15 March, 2017 TheLawDictionary.org, What is RELEVANT?, http://thelawdictionary.org/relevant/ accessed 8 March 2017 [1] TheLawDictionary.org, What is RELEVANT?, http://thelawdictionary.org/relevant/ accessed 8 March 2017. [2] Richard Glover, Murphy on Evidence (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2015) p 590 [3] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s 53 (1) [4] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s 53 (1) [5] Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 s80 (3) [6] Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 s80 (3) [7] R v L [2009] 1 WLR 626, CA [8] R v L [2009] 1 WLR 626, CA [9] Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 277 [10] Criminal Justice Act 2003 [11] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s116 (2) [12] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s16-s17 [13] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s17 [14] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s17 [15] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s23 [16] Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s27(1)-(3) [17] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s98 [18] R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 [19] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s98 [20] Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 258 [21] Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 258 [22] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s112 [23] Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [24] Hanson (Gilmore) [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [25] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s102 [26] R v Davis [2008] EWCA Crim 1156 [27]R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 [28] R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 [29] R v Phillips [2003] EWCA Crim 1379 [30] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s103 (1) (a) [31] R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [32] R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 [33] Christina McAlhone and Michael Stockdale, Nutshells, Evidence in a nutshell (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2002) p 82 [34] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76 (1) [35] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76 (2) [36] R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65 [37] Oxforddictionary.com Oppression, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/oppression accessed 15 March, 2017 [38] R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65

It’s Time for Customers to Mind their Manners :: Argumentative Persuasive Argument Essays

It’s Time for Customers to Mind their Manners I am writing to you, my fellow citizens of Smallville, as plea for you to start using your manners when dining out. I have been in the restaurant business for the past four years. Currently, I am a waitress at a Smallville bar and grill. I have to say that I am surprised at the way I am treated while at work. Never before have I experienced such blatant disrespect in my workplace. I have shared many positive experiences with customers and employees alike, but that is not what I am going to tell you about today. I deal with such rudeness on an everyday level that you would be shocked to hear all the cases. I have decided to highlight a certain family that frequents my restaurant to help illustrate the type of ill-mannered behavior that is taking place all over the valley. One Thursday evening I was working at Keegan’s Bar and Grill in the Ocotillo neighborhood of Smallville. The hostess of this fine establishment came to notify me I had received the first table of the night. It was a family of five, three children and both parents. As I approached the table, I encountered utter chaos; children fighting over who would get to sit next to whom and who would get the blue crayons. I started to retreat to give these outnumbered parents a chance to get settled in but was called back to the table by a snap of the fingers, and then informed by the father that he needed a Bud Light right away. First of all, I have a serious objection to being snapped at as if I were a small puppy or something, but I thought to myself If I were in your shoes I would need a beer to cope with this situations also. I put the order into the bar for the Bud Light. I returned to the table with this man’s drink only to see that, in order to appease their youngest child, someone had given her the salt and pepper shakers. This creates quite a mess, as you can imagine. This would not be a big deal had the parents any inclination to clean up the salt and pepper before leaving, but I knew they would not. Why do you allow your children to wreak havoc in someone else’s workplace?

Pride and Prejudice: Hardships of Women in the 19th Century Essay

Women of the 19th century experienced severe hardships. Elizabeth Bennett’s experiences demonstrated the life of women who where pressured to conform to society’s expectations. After breaking down barriers women today have the freedom to express themselves, be educated and prosperous, and most important of all live without restrictions. â€Å"Pride and Prejudice,† written by Jane Austin, portrays the protagonist of the novel through the eyes of the author. Issues of marriage, class mobility, conforming, and restrictions to marrying, only account for some hardships faced by Elizabeth and other characters throughout the novel. Throughout the novel, characters where faced and forced to overcome obstacles of love. Views of marriage differed from character to character. Women where not educated and where forced to conform to the society’s expectations which kept them from being independent. Therefore, Elizabeth Bennet’s mother, Mrs. Bennet forced marriage upon her daughters. Elizabeth’s engagement to Darcy was criticized because many did not feel the couple was a good match for each other because he was a â€Å"proud† individual, and their economic differences and stature also prohibited the couple to be a good match according to society. Mrs. Bennet was happy when she heard about Darcy’s proposal to Elizabeth stating, â€Å"How rich and how great you will be!†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ what pin- money, what jewels, what carriages you will have!† (Austen 325). Mrs. Bennet’s focus of life revolved around her daughters or at least one of her daughters marrying wealthy, so t hat not only that daughter will be cared for, but Mrs. Bennett and any unwed sisters will be provided for, as well. Mr. Bennett agreed that, â€Å"the business of her life was to get her daughters married; i... ... she did not love him, knowing that she would have been able to secure her fathers’ wealth. Elizabeth did not conform to her society’s expectations and refused to marry for any other reason than true love, sticking to what she believed in most although opposing the beliefs of her society. She placed a higher importance on interest, attraction, and love. Bibliography Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice,3rd ed. Norton, 2001. Williams, Michael. â€Å"Vision: Jane Austen Study Guide,† University of South Africa Pretoria, 2002. Menon, Sindhu. â€Å"The Literature Network.† Jalic Inc. 3 March. 2015. http://www.online-literature.com/austen/prideprejudice/ "Pride and Prejudice." Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica. Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica Online. Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, 2011. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. .

Cause and Effects of Protestant Reformation

Major Causes and Effects of the Protestant Reformation There were several causes of the Protestant Reformation that effected society, politics, and religion in Europe during the 16th century. In my opinion, the immediate cause that started the reformation was Martin Luther’s act of posting the 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral in the Roman Empire. Luther was unhappy with the Catholic Church, and posted the Theses due to the sale of indulgences that was going on to raise money for the renovation of St.Peter’s cathedral from people who wished that their souls go from purgatory to heaven. Luther believed that an indulgence was justified for a person’s wrongdoing. By selling indulgences, the Church was giving forgiveness to people who were not sorry for the sins they had committed. Luther posted the Theses in order to debate the sale of indulgences because he was worried for the people’s souls. Although Luther’s original intentions were to reform the Church of its corruption and greed, it resulted in a split between Protestants and Catholics. The effect that this had on religion was huge.People began to question the oppression of the Church and see it for the manipulative organization which it was, wanting complete control of the population. In turn, people challenged the Church’s authority, and it eventually lead to people freeing themselves from the constraints of the Church as a whole. This made each man individually answerable himself to God. While Luther’s Theses was the immediate cause of the Reformation there were several other causes also. Another major cause was the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible to English.John Wycliff translated the Bible to English so that those who could not read Latin could interpret for themselves what the Bible had said. He believed that the Church was entirely too wealthy, and that they were taking advantage of those that had to rely on the Church for Bible translation and guidance. I believe that the printing press allowed for more common people to be able to purchase books. Before the printing press Monks had to recopy books themselves by hand. It also allowed for mass production which put the Bible and other literature in the hands of a much larger audience.The effects on society were that common people were getting more educated on their own, and didn’t need the Church for guidance to run their lives. It also encouraged more people to learn how to write because there was a wider market for their words and opinions. Religion became more accessible to the common people. This allowed for people to come up with their own opinions on the translation of the Bible. The people began to challenge the Church’s authority because they no longer needed a Priest to translate to them. This would end up causing the Catholic Church to lose power.The next major cause of the Protestant Reformation was the creatio n of Lutheranism and the Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church changed the entire culture in Europe. It caused society as a whole to live more wholesome lives by cutting down on sinful acts and criminal offenses. The Church began to draw the line on what was acceptable and what was not. People began to live more holy lives. Since religion had so much to do with the government and politics at the time, it affected how governments had to be run because they could no longer pay off the Church to get their way.This caused a major political effect on the Catholic Church. Power struggles began to influence how rulers would deal with the Church. Luther’s opposition to the financial practices of the Catholic Church fell on welcome ears even though any religion from the religion that was practiced by the majority of citizens was considered very dangerous. Many local authorities realized that by adopting Lutheranism and ridding themselves of Catholicism that they could seize Church prop erty and avoid payment of Church taxes.When Charles V signed the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, it allowed local princes to determine the religion of their area and declare their political and financial independence from the Catholic Church. Although there were many causes and effects of the Protestant Reformation, I believe that these are the most influential causes and effects of society, politics, and religion in Europe during the 16th century. Works Cited Duiker, William J. , Spielvogel, Jackson J. â€Å"World History Seventh Edition Volume II Since 1500† Wadsworth, 2013. Print.

nt1330 unit 7 assinment1 Essay

TO Business ManagerFROM IT adviserI abide understand how you concerned with your companions security after totally nurture on competitors can be invalu satisfactory or very denigrating to a comp both and this is why it moldiness be fostered from prying eyes. This does non get hold of to mean that you have to have production over trying to hard your networks information. An easy measure like drug drug callr lifts and passwords can be use to protect less sensitive information barely how strong you make those usernames and passwords can have a significant topic on how well your information is protected. I will give you some tips on how to better secure your network with the tools that you already have at hand, keep in mind that you can also deprave better security items to better protect you network things like smart card, experience print scanners, retinal scanners, etc. but I only recommend these for authentically sensitive information and only for accredited user s in your company.On the server that is the DC log in to the administrator level and in the Active Directory Users and Computers in the macrocosm icon in the left pane click on the users icon, youll be able to see all of the users in that ground. From hither you can click on any user and make changes as necessary, for user names I recommend you use the following format using superior and lower case letters the inaugural letter of their name, their whole last name and their employee morsel, ex. CCbattle1234Domain*%.Local if someone hack the throwaway and all that they knew the individual name and the domain name they could not get in because it is very unlikely that they would know that person employee number and if they do then you have a spy in your company. As for passwords I recommend that they be of import numeric and what this means is that they should be at least eight characters long, be tranquil of upper and lower case letters, should deem at least one number and one special character.Best Regards,IT Consultant

Deception Point Page 56

Hes breaking the law, Gabrielle said. Isnt he?Or so Marjorie tench would overhear you rely. Candidates accept sub-rosa donations altogether the quantify from big corporations. It may not be pretty, scarce if its not necessarily il statutory. In fact, most legal issues deal not with where the money comes from entirely how the candidate chooses to spend it.Gabrielle hesitated, feeling suspicious now.Gabs, the White House played you this afternoon. They try to turn you once morest your candidate, and so far youve called their bluff. If I were looking for someone to trust, I venture Id stick with sacristan before jump ship to someone worry Marjorie Tench.Yolandas howler rang. She answered, nodding, uh-huh-ing, taking notes. Interesting, she finally said. Ill be undecomposed thither. Thanks.Yolanda hung up and turned with an arched brow. Gabs, sounds akin youre off the hook. Just as I predicted.Whats going on?I dont have a specific yet, but I can tell you this much-the pre alignnts press multitude has nothing to do with sex scandals or campaign finance.Gabrielle matt-up a hit of hope and wanted badly to believe her. How do you know that?Someone on the inside fitting leaked that the press multitude is NASA-related.Gabrielle sat up suddenly. NASA?Yolanda winked. This could be your easy night. My bet is electric chair Herney is feeling so much pressure from Senator Sexton that hes refractory the White House has no plectron but to pull the plug on the International Space Station. That explains all the spherical media coverage.A press conference killing the space station? Gabrielle could not imagine.Yolanda s aliked up. That Tench attack this afternoon? It was probably just a last-ditch effort to rise a foothold over Sexton before the President had to go open with the bad sores. Nothing like a sex scandal to take the attendance away from an different presidential flop. Anyhow, Gabs, Ive got bunk to do. My advice to you-get yourself a cup of coffee, sit correctly here, turn on my television, and ride this step up like the rest of us. Weve got twenty minutes until show time, and Im telling you, there is no way the President is going Dumpster-diving tonight. Hes got the solid world watching. Whatever he has to scan carries some serious weight. She gave a tranquillise wink. Now give me the envelope.What?Yolanda held out a demanding hand. These pictures are getting locked in my desk until this is over. I want to be sure you dont do something idiotic.Reluctantly, Gabrielle handed over the envelope.Yolanda locked the photos care fully in a desk drawer and pocketed the keys. Youll thank me, Gabs. I swear it. She playfully ruffled Gabrielles whisker on her way out. Sit tight. I reckon safe(p) news is on the way.Gabrielle sat alone in the starter cubicle and assay to let Yolandas well cosmos attitude lift her mood. All Gabrielle could think of, though, was the self-satisfied smirk on the brass of Marjorie Tench thi s afternoon. Gabrielle could not imagine what the President was about to tell the world, but it was definitely not going to be good news for Senator Sexton.65Rachel Sexton mat up like she was being burned alive.Its rain fireShe assay to open her eyeball, but all she could make out were wooly- sound judge handsted shapes and blinding lights. It was raining all near her. Scalding hot rain. Pounding down on her bare skin. She was craft on her side and could feel hot tiles beneath her automobile trunk. She curve more tightly into the fetal position, try to protect herself from the scalding liquid falling from to a higher place. She smelled chemicals. Chlorine, maybe. She tried and true to crawl away, but she could not. Powerful workforce pressed down on her shoulders, guardianship her down.Let me go Im burningInstinctively, she again fought to escape, and again she was rebuffed, the strong hands clamping down. perch where you are, a mans voice said. The accent was America n. Professional. It impart be over soon.What will be over? Rachel wondered. The spite? My life? She tried to focus her vision. The lights in this place were harsh. She feel the room was small. Cramped. Low ceilings.Im burning Rachels scream was a whisper.Youre fine, the voice said. This pee is lukewarm. trust me.Rachel realized she was mostly undressed, wearing simply her soaked underwear. No embarrassment registered her perspicacity was filled with too many other questions.The memories were coming back now in a torrent. The ice shelf. The GPR. The attack. Who? Where am I? She tried to put the pieces together, but her mind matt-up torpid, like a set(p) of clogged gears. From out of the muddled muddiness came a single thought Michael and corked where are they?Rachel tried to focus her woolly vision but saw only the men standing over her. They were all dressed in the same raunchy jumpsuits. She wanted to speak, but her mouth refused to meditate a single word. The burning necromancer in her skin was now great(p) way to sudden deep waves of aching that rolled through the muscles like seismic tremors.Let it happen, the man over her said. The stock needs to flow back into your musculature. He spoke like a doctor. elbow grease to move your limbs as much as you can.The pain racking Rachels body felt up as if every muscle was being beaten with a hammer. She lay there on the tile, her chest contracting, and she could barely breathe. give way your legs and arms, the man insisted. No matter what it feels like.Rachel tried. all(prenominal) movement felt like a knife being thrust into her joints. The jets of piss grew hotter again. The scalding was back. The crushing pain went on. At the accurate instant she thought she could not concur another moment, Rachel felt someone bragging(a) her an pellet. The pain seemed to subside quickly, slight and less violent, releasing. The tremors slowed. She felt herself breathing again.A new sensation was spreading through her body now, the eerie bite of pins and needles. Everywhere-stabbing-sharper and sharper. Millions of tiny needle-point jabs, increase whenever she moved. She tried to hold motionless, but the water jets continued to buffet her. The man above her was holding her arms, moving them.God that hurts Rachel was too weak to fight. Tears of exhaustion and pain poured down her face. She shut her eyes hard, pulley block out the world.Finally, the pins and needles began to dissipate. The rain from above stopped. When Rachel exposed her eyes, her vision was clearer.It was then that she saw them. corky and Tolland lay nearby, quivering, half-naked and soaked. From the looks of anguish on their faces, Rachel sensed that they had just endured similar experiences. Michael Tollands brown eyes were bloodshot and glassy. When he saw Rachel, he managed a weak smile, his blue lips trembling.Rachel tried to sit up, to take in their crotchety surroundings. The three of them were lying in a trembling twist of half-naked limbs on the coldcock of a tiny shower room.66Strong arms lifted her.Rachel felt the powerful strangers drying her body and wrapping her in blankets. She was being placed on a medical bed of some discriminate and vigorously massaged on her arms, legs, and feet. Another injection in her arm.Adrenaline, someone said.Rachel felt the medicate coursing through her veins like a life force, invigorating her muscles. Although she still felt an icy hollowness tight like a drum in her gut, Rachel sensed the blood slowly returning to her limbs. rearwards from the dead.She tried to focus her vision. Tolland and Corky were lying nearby, shivering in blankets as the men massaged their bodies and gave them injections as well. Rachel had no doubt that this privy assemblage of men had just rescue their lives. Many of them were soaking wet, apparently having jumped into the showers fully clothed to help. Who they were or how they had gotten to Rachel and the others in time was beyond her. It made no expiration at the moment. Were alive.