Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

The Wire – The Birth of Hamsterdam

The Wire – The Birth of Hamsterdam


The Wire – The Birth of Hamsterdam
• This drug thing, this ain’t police work

Things to consider/questions regarding video clips:

• The importance of relationships with the community from police perspective.
• The paper bag for the beer. Community problem solving which allow the police to have discretion (A compromise for both sides).

• Colvin tells Carver that he has good stats (arrests, seizures) but also says stats don’t mean anything when it comes to community safety.
• Do stats provide the full picture when looking at a community’s safety?

• Labeling Theory ??

• Do we ask too much from our police?
• What would you suggest to make the police more efficient?
• Are drugs a police issue or a social issue?

• Neighborhood Policing (Community policing) effective or not? Why or why not?

• Colvin tells Carver he is no good at policing does he mean?
• What makes a good police officer?
• What skills and/or attributes are needed?

The legal regulation of Canada is beneath the distinctive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The ability to enact criminal regulation is derived from segment 91(27) from the Constitution Take action, 1867. Most legal regulations have been codified from the Illegal Rule, as well as the Controlled Medicines and Materials Work, Youngsters Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes. In all Canadian provinces and areas, legal prosecutions are introduced the label in the “Queen in Proper of Canada”.

Someone may be prosecuted criminally for just about any offences based in the Illegal Rule or other federal statute containing illegal offences.[1]

There are 2 simple kinds of offences. The most minimal offences are summary indictment offences. These are described as “overview” throughout the Take action and, unless otherwise reported, are punishable by a good of at most $5,000 or 6 months in prison. Examples of offences that are always summary offences consist of trespassing at night (section 177), causing a disruption (segment 175) and having a vehicle with no owner’s permission (segment 335) (an equal to the British TWOC).

All non-overview offences are indictable: the accessible penalty charges are better for indictable offences than for summing up offences. These consequently can be split up into three categories.

Indictable-only offences include treason and murder (segment 235) and are indexed in section 469 in the Felony Rule. These may only be tried out through the better the courtroom in the region with a jury unless the two charged particular person and the Lawyer or attorney Basic consent to demo with a higher the courtroom judge alone: portion 473. Offences of complete jurisdiction incorporate robbery and scam around the need for $5,000 and specific nuisance offences. These are indexed in section 553 from the Illegal Computer code: the charged man or woman lacks an political election and must be attempted by a determine of your provincial courtroom without a jury. Most other offences defined by the Felony Program code are triable in either case and are sometimes known as crossbreed offences. Within these offences, the charged individual can elect if you should be attempted by: a provincial the courtroom judge, a assess of your greater judge of your province without a jury or a assess in the better courtroom with a jury. However, in the event the charged elects trial run from a provincial the courtroom determine, that determine can fall authority and send the case towards the better courtroom: segment 554. The Lawyer Standard also can require a circumstance to become tried out by the better the courtroom with a jury: section 568.

Elements of an offence Legal offences need the prosecuting crown to prove there was illegal conduct (known as the actus reus or “remorseful take action”) along with a legal frame of mind (referred to as mens rea or “guilty brain”)[2] on the normal of “past a fair doubt”.[3] Exclusions for the mens rea necessity exist for rigid and total responsibility offences.

The particular components of each offence may be found in the wording from the offence as well as the scenario law interpreting it. The additional factors typically require there being an “work”, in some “situations”, and often a particular “consequence” that is caused by the motion.[4]

For the crown to prove the accused is guilty the actus reus and mens rea must be proven. Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Crime/ Guilty

Mens rea The psychological or mistake factors of an offence are usually determined using terms within the text in the offence if not by circumstance legislation. Mens Rea in Canada typically concentrates on the particular or ‘subjective’ state of mind of your accused. Where no normal is explicitly reported carry out must typically be shown to are already completed with an overall intention (i.e. intention to do something in the specific way irrespective of the action’s outcome). Where a number of conditions are area of the offence, the charged must have had familiarity with them, that may be imputed based on conduct along with other facts.

Defences As soon as the Crown is able to show the elements of your offence beyond a reasonable uncertainty, the protection may still prevent certainty by increasing a good defence.

A true defence occurs when some circumstances pay for the charged a partial or comprehensive justification or excuse for committing the felony act. In Canada, the defences are often just like regular and popularly realized defences of other frequent regulation jurisdictions for example the You.K., Australia and the usa. The real defences include duress,[5] automatism,[6] intoxication,[7] or necessity.[8] There is also a partial defence of provocation, that has the effect of decreasing what can otherwise be murder to manslaughter. This part defence is provided by s. 232 of the Criminal Rule.

Some defences are given for by law and some defences are supplied for solely from the common legislation. Sometimes popular law defences are superseded by statutory enactment, for example duress, personal-defence and as mentioned above, extreme intoxication. When it comes to duress the Supreme The courtroom of Canada struck on the statutory supply as violative of s. 7 of your Charter, making the larger typical rules defence alternatively. Statutory encroachments around the range of typical legislation defences can violate s. 7 of the Charter when they unacceptably decrease the fault condition of offences.

As well as the true defences as outlined above, there are other “defences” inside a broader sensation. In some cases, these “defences” are actually just an assertion how the Crown has not yet proven among the aspects of the offence. For example, the error of simple fact defence involves an assertion the accused misinterpreted some materials factual make a difference that prevented him from developing the requisite mens rea to the offence. In the context of sexual assault, for example, a mistake of fact defence usually involves an assertion that the accused did not realize the complainant was not consenting. Within the framework of sexual assault, as an example, an oversight of simple fact defence usually requires an assertion the accused failed to know the complainant had not been consenting. In functional conditions and frequent parlance, nevertheless, it can be still considered to be a defence. Another example of this much more basic type of protection may be the “i.d. defence”, which is really just an assertion from the charged the Crown has neglected to confirm the identity of the perpetrator of a crime beyond a fair uncertainty. There are several other types of these kinds of defence. In fact they can be just clusters of particular weak points that develop frequently within the criminal prosecution of particular kinds of offences.

All defences – whether one is speaking of true defences or defences within the bigger sensation – can develop from the proof known as with the Crown or maybe the accused. A defence can only be kept with all the jury (or regarded as by a evaluate trying the way it is without a jury) where there is an “oxygen of fact” to the defence in the evidence. That atmosphere of actuality can develop through the Crown’s circumstance and from your defence scenario if someone is called. It is far from necessary for an accused to confirm or phone other data to increase a protection. If the evidence called through the Crown is plenty to increase an air of reality to some protection, the jury must think about if the protection applies, most in the normal of whether it increases a reasonable hesitation.