Criminal homework help

CAN YOU DO THIS FOR ME DUE 9/28/2020

you are required to reply to 2 other classmates’ threads. Each reply must be a minimum of 100 words and must cite at least 2 academic sources. One source has to be biblical.. Acceptable sources include the textbook, peer-reviewed journal articles, government sources/websites, and professional association websites. In addition to academic support, students must apply a Chrisitian worldview perspective and integrate Biblical scripture support for all posts.

Responding to a classmate’s post requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the response post is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon initial posts to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced in the initial posts. As such, reply posts that merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous post(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.

replies are due by 10:59 p.m. (CST) on Monday of the same modules/weeks

1st reply

Joshua Sanchez

This discussion board thread will examine whether this student believes that law enforcement has probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant for Mr. Smith. This student does believe that an arrest warrant can be obtained for Mr. Smith’s arrest based on several key factors that were mentioned in the case. First though, let one examine a brief definition of probable cause since that is what is needed to make an arrest. “[P]robable cause is ‘something more than ‘mere suspicion,’ but something less than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’93 is based on common sense, and involves a flexible approach involving the totality of the circumstances94 as set forth in Illinois v. Gates” (Zanello, 2015, B. Search Warrants, Warrantless Searches, Probable Cause, and Reasonable Suspicion, Para. 2). Essentially, probable cause is a suspicion that is backed up by several facts. (Hess, Orthmann, and Cho, 2017) This is the definition of probable cause that this post will use to show that there is probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant for Smith.

To begin examining whether an arrest warrant can be given for Mr. Smith, one should ensure that a crime actually did occur. This means that all of the elements of a robbery must be present in this crime scenario. The elements of a robbery are: whether there was property that was wrongfully taken from its owner, whether the property was taken while in the owner’s presence, and whether the property was taken by force or by the threat of force. (Hess, Orthmann, and Cho, 2017) In the case scenario, the cashier was definitely robbed, for he had his property taken away from him, in his presence, by the threat of force. Thus, there was definitely a crime here.

Next, one must examine the facts that support law enforcement’s probable cause. First, Mr. Smith’s clothing matched that of the robber, and his car was seen in the general vicinity of the convenience store. While this could be a coincidence, this could also very likely mean that Mr. Smith was the one who committed the crime. Mr. Smith also met all of the eyewitness descriptions and video descriptions of the robber. The cashier’s description matched the video recording’s description, and in the photo lineup, the cashier also picked out Mr. Smith in the lineup.

Thus, the eyewitness testimony points to Mr. Smith as the robber. “Despite criticism and controversy regarding the value of eyewitness testimony, judges and juries accord significant weight to eyewitness evidence” (Hess, Orthmann, and Cho, 2017, 1-12j Witnesses, Para. 2), and the police should trust the eyewitness evidence in this case as well. This is because the eyewitness testimony matches the description of Mr. John Smith and because all of the other evidences also seems to point to Mr. Smith. Hence, there is definitely probable cause to arrest him, for common sense (supported by several facts) would seem to indicate that he was the one who conducted the crime.

This though, does not necessarily mean that Mr. Smith is guilty, but it does give the officers probable cause to arrest him and then question him further. The only factor that seems to stand against the opinion that Mr. Smith was the robber, is that he stated that he was shooting hoops alone on the night of the robbery. This evidence though, cannot be backed up if he was alone, and therefore, he does not have any alibis. Usually, “suspects attempt to corroborate their alibi by offering objects (physical evidence) or details about people (person evidence) that may account for their presence at a certain place at a certain time during the time frame of the crime” (Portnoy, Hope, Vrij, Ask, & Landström, 2019, Providing a Convincing Alibi, Para. 1).

If though, Mr. Smith was shooting hoops alone, and since there was no evidence given by Mr. Smith that could prove his innocence in the case, it is basically Mr. Smith’s word against that of the other evidence. Mr. Smith’s word – while important – cannot stand alone, for as the Bible says, “[m]ost men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?” (Proverbs 20:6, KJV). This means that most people will claim whatever is in their best interest to be the truth. This means that Mr. Smith could be possibly lying about his whereabouts on the night of the robbery. Therefore, if the evidence matches up with the assumption that Mr. Smith was the robber, then there should be an arrest warrant filed for him, for there is definitely enough probable cause in this case to at least issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Smith.

References

Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. L. (2017). Criminal investigation (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning

Portnoy, S., Hope, L., Vrij, A., Ask, K., & Landström, S. (2019). Beliefs about suspect alibis: A survey of lay people in the United Kingdom, Israel, and Sweden. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 24(1), 59-74. doi:10.1177/1365712719873008

Zanello, L. N. (2015). To sniff or not to sniff: Making sense of past and recent state and federal decisions in connection with drug-detection dogs – where do we go from here? Albany Law Review, 78(4), 1569-1603. Retrieved from https://web-b-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=5d6e39a3-6780-4e4e-b21a-aa6577e963ec%40sessionmgr103

2nd reply

Angela Thompson

“Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need” (Ephesians 4:28). In this particular situation, the officer-involved had probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant for the student (suspect), John Smith. “Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed” (Hess, Orthmann & Cho,2017). Based on the evidence presented, the arrest warrant was valid. “All states permit an arrest based on probable cause” (Hess, Orthmann & Cho,2017). John Smith’s clothing and physical description matched that of the robber on the surveillance video. John Smiths alibi was lacking, in the fact that no one could attest to him “Shooting hoops on Liberty University’s campus” because he stated that he was alone. The cashier was able to identify Smith as the robber after viewing his photograph. “Eyewitness identification is affected by many factors: the distance between the witness and the suspect at the time of the robbery; the time of day, lighting, and weather conditions; the amount of violence involved; whether the witness had ever seen or knew the suspect; and the time it took for the crime to be committed” (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2017). Romans 13:9 for the commandments, “you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”.

Matison Hess, K., Hess Orthmann, C., & Lim Cho, S. (2017). Criminal Investigation (11th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.