This is a big question that has been on the minds of a number of people since the whole celebrity nude leak scandal started. There are a lot of issues that come with the whole thing, like internet security and whether or not your pictures in clouds are really safe from being hacked into, but has anyone considered this case to be a sex crime? Is this the next step that needs to be paid attention to? Jennifer Lawrence seems to think so.
A couple of weeks after the leaks happened, Jennifer Lawrence came out and started to talk about how the whole thing made her feel. She felt scared, she felt absolutely violated, and she felt like it could end up hurting her acting career. It hasn’t done the latter as of yet, but let’s take a look at the first two parts. If you look at the way that most sex crime laws are written, they use this sort of language, especially when it comes to using the term “violated.” According to an Aurora Family Lawyer violation is something that only you can judge – even if someone doesn’t touch you, you can feel as if your body or your life has been violated in one way or another, and many times, that’s a sex crime.
Of course, this becomes a lot more complicated when you start going down the rabbit hole. Obviously, it’s not the same category of crime that you see in say, rape, or sexual assault, but it’s more akin to sexual harassment, which is definitely a very severe crime said the. But, because it’s dealing with technology, it’s kind of in a category all by itself, which means that, when it goes to trial, there are going to be a lot of question marks that come up. Will the offenders be considered sexual offenders? What will it say on their records? Will it even come up?
Lawrence brings up an excellent point that hadn’t been brought up yet, and as criminal lawyers, this is important for us to think about as well. Technology has changed the way that a lot of things work, and because of that, our laws are going to have to continue to change. We will have to see how the courts decide to deal with this case so that we can understand how it’s going to affect us in our cases going forward.
The War on Marijuana is losing steam. Policymakers, specialists, and legal officials are starting to perceive that capturing and detaining individuals for marijuana squanders billions of dollars, does not decrease the misuse of marijuana or different drugs, and ends up giving a lot of unfair issues to minorities. Marijuana changes are presently occurring all over the country, creating open deliberations over which procedures best decrease the risks.
Should marijuana be decriminalized or legalized? Should it be restricted to individuals 21 and older? Backers of the system that is currently in place frequently contend that their endeavors are to protect youth. Be that as it may, if the outcomes of arrest for marijuana ownership — including fines, time in jail, group therapy, a criminal record, an inability to get a proper education, and court costs — are more unsafe than using the drug. It’s not really clear how making this a criminal issue helps those who are under the age of 21. Right now, individuals under 21 make up about one-third of marijuana clients, yet a large portion of all marijuana possession charges.
This investigation looks at the five states that executed marijuana changes in the past five years, assessing their viability in lessening marijuana arrests and their effect on different security and health concerns. Two categories of changes are assessed: all-ages decriminalization (California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts), and 21 and older legalization (Colorado and Washington). The main conclusions of the study include the following.
All five states accomplished considerable decreases in marijuana possession arrests. The four states with accessible information demonstrated sudden drops in marijuana arrests. All-ages decriminalization lessened marijuana arrests even more and reduced the risks for individuals of all ages, especially for teenagers.
According to a san diego criminal defense attorney Marijuana decriminalization in California has not made teens more likely to commit crimes or drop out of school. Actually, it’s quite the opposite; California teens demonstrated an improvement of many of their delinquency issues after marijuana was decriminalized. Staggering racial inconsistencies remain— and at times are exacerbated — after marijuana changes. African Americans are still more prone to be arrested for marijuana offenses now. Further changes are required in every one of the five states to move to full legitimization and to address other issues, especially issues related to race.
Will the decriminalization of marijuana help decrease criminal charges? Will other states follow suit? Both are important things to consider, and should be discussed on a larger scale.
It’s true. Not everybody who confesses is really the one who committed the crime. It seems like a really simple thing that you have to think about. This is essential stuff that you may already know. But obviously, there’s a reason that I have to talk about this driving under the influence defense, or I wouldn’t even bring it up. There are a lot of issues in the world of the media, and one is how badly we make people look, even those who are confessing to be guilty in order to get a lesser sentence.
A criminal defense attorney says individuals confess constantly. For various types of reasons not needing to do with whether or not someone is actually guilty. Here are a few of the main reasons that people who were not guilty would confess to guilty anyway.
• It’s an instance of he-said/she-said and nobody will accept what he said and he can’t prove his innocence, so they plead guilty to try and get it done and over with.
• It’s simpler to go to prison than manage a troublesome probation officer and an unwavering world that will forever see you as a criminal.
• Our obligatory minimum and maximum sentences are so all over the place that any rational individual, when put under arrest, would try to confess so that they could try to get the minimum sentence.
• They can’t afford to pay bail and have been in prison for the length of time that the plea is for anyway, so they plea and get it over with.
• They’re covering for another person that they want to keep safe – some family members, spouses, and other people will try to do this so that they can take the punishment instead. This is becoming a little less common as technology advances, but it still happens.
So people are basically assuming that it’s the easy way out – when it’s really unfair to them. Why has the legal system gotten this way? What has happened that those who are even accused of criminal charges have to be afraid of losing their livelihood and other things? Why do we focus on incarceration, instead of rehabilitating those who have committed crimes? It’s about the changes in society’s mindset, but it’s also about the confusion that goes around these sorts of charges, and as lawyers, we have to work to help change what is going on in our legal system today.