![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone qualified the discussion in the article about mala in se vs. mala prohibita with:
What sense of "common law" are they referring to? And what jursidictions used to recognize common law but don't anymore? I can't think of any. -- SJK —(Undated. Added 15:51, 25 February 2002 UTC by Conversion script.)
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)
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)
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)
—The unsigned section heading above was added by 67.177.56.117 ( talk · contribs) 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC).
The following although partially POV perhaps, contains the valid fact that a defendant with resources must pay for his own defence. Further this directly implies a more lucrative situation for the lawyers, as the defendant is forced to pay whatever it takes to save himself. This fact and its obvious implication belong on this page:
The state pays for the prosecution, whereas the defendant must pay for his own defense. This brings a very lucrative situation to the lawyer, since the defendant will pay anything to save himself. But in almost all but the most unusual cases the resources of the state far outstrip the resources of the defendant. This explains why the USA has far and away more people locked away than any country on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.157.143 ( talk • contribs) 7:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (" LegalEagle1798 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" added 2 weeks later.) ("explains" changed to "helps explain" at 06:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) by 24.12.208.181 ( talk · contribs))
This issue is fundumental and does not belong in legal aid anyway as that applies to indigent defendants. The fact that a defendant must pay for his own defense and is confronted by the full resources of the state is the cornerstone of criminal justice system in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (" LegalEagle1798 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" added 2 weeks later.)
Dont you see your whole statement here is irrelevant?????? The point is that the defendant, represented by a private attorney, is opposed by the vast resources of the state. This does not make for justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There are exactly zero defendants defended by the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a fact that the vast resources of the state are alligned against the resources of the individual in criminal law in the USA. This implies a very lucrative situation for the lawyers as the defendant is compelled to pay anything to save himself, and it does not imply justice as the resources of the state are much greater than the resources of the individual.
Further, a defense funded by the state, and being actually defended by the state are two very different things entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 00:55 & 01:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have read and reread your words here and I fail to see how you have disproved my statement on this matter. Apparently your argument is that since lawyers that defend indigent defendants are poorly paid, poorly paid at least in relation to other lawyers, that this cannot be a lucrative situation for lawyers. You have given no evidence that lawyers that represent criminal defendants with resources are poorly paid, and the logic of the situation suggests that such lawyers make a big buck. These defendants with resources are are forced to pay anything to save themselves. We know for a fact that lawyers that defend wealthy defendants make a fortune.
If anything you have only proved a third implication of the main premise, the poor defendants get the worst attorneys. This is because it is against human nature for the better attorneys to take the worst paying jobs. So let me repeat my statement with your new implication.
It is a fact that the vast resources of the state are alligned against the resources of the individual in criminal law in the USA. This implies a very lucrative situation for the lawyers as the defendant is compelled to pay anything to save himself, this also implies that poor defendants will get the worst lawyers since defending indigent defendants pays less than other lawyer jobs, and it does not imply justice as the resources of the state are much greater than the resources of the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEagle1798 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (" LegalEagle1798 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)" added later.)
Inquisitorial system LegalEagle1798 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In 2004 there were 14 million people arrested in the USA according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report. There are two million people in jail in the USA. There is plenty of money in criminal law and it is silly to claim otherwise.
To the first poster here, you have missed the very important point that in inquisitorial systems it is the responsibility of the state to defend the defendant, whereas in an adversarial system such as the United States exactly zero defendants are defended by the state. To the second poster, this absurd system where the vast resources of the state are pitted against the resources of the individual cannot be made right by the caveat that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Let's start by looking at Michael Jackson case. There is no doubt that the specific charges leveled at Jackson in this case were extremely weak. The victim in this case had zero credibility. Perhaps a different case with a different victim would have had some merit, but that is completely beside the point. The specific charges made against Jackson in this case were extraordinarily weak.
This case alone with the huge publicity it generated disproves your main premise that a criminal defense typically becomes necessary only when the state has a strong case against the accused. Even if you have great celebrity and enormous resources, you must still fear that the state will prosecute you relying on a complaint with little merit. If you have ordinary resources and the state ensnares you with a complaint that lacks merit, and this can happen for a myriad of reasons, you are in serious trouble.
The OJ Simpson case shows that the state cannot be relied on to do its job properly in a criminal case in the adversarial system. At basically every stage and level of the investigation and trial in this case the state proved its incompetence. This was a case that was receiving enormous publicity and all of the players knew that their actions would receive greater scrutiny than in the run of the mill case. A strong case can be made that the incompetence and dysfunction on display in this trial merely reflected the general incompetence and dysfunction that happens day in and day out throughout the adversarial system of justice in the United States.
In the adversarial system the state abrogates all responsibility to defend those accused of crimes. The individual is left to his own resources against the vast resources of the state, and somehow this is all called justice by the caveat that the defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This all does not work in theory and in the real world it works worse. LegalEagle1798 22:04, 4 February & 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
how the CHAT effects the criminal drugs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.26.226 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) — (Posted by 82.58.198.245, 11:56 - 12:08, 15 January 2007 UTC)
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. :) Wik idea 08:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
The Wikidea reverted introduction:
is redundant and not especially helpful. I prefer the shorter version, which is more in keeping with the spirit of WP:LEAD. THF 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am worried that the changes made recently have not improved the page at all.
1. A substantial amount of well referenced material has been deleted. This is not right, because at the very least it should be saved somewhere else. Just one example is the paragraph on necessity because it was said it was a marginal topic. Please see the main article. In fact it's quite a hot topic!
2. Separate jurisdictions should not appear at the top. On the Wikiproject law, the idea is to create a page which is cross-jurisdictional, so a general discussion should be the starting point.
3. That said, obviously to begin with the material there is about the English speaking world. This is partly inevitable on the English wikipages, but it perhaps states the obvious to put up an unsightly tag. I agree that as much information, well referenced from an expert should be brought in, and I encourage everyone with such knowledge to participate.
4. The introduction must summarise the article, as an overview, as is proscribed by WP:LEAD. That requires more than a small paragraph. I agree that the former introduction may have been too conversational, but let's work with that rather than chopping it, and keep the relevant links to the article's discussion.
5. The section now entitled "Punishment" is inadequate precisely because there are different goals that criminal law may aim to achieve. Punishment for offences is indeed a very strong strand of theory, but that goes along side the others (rehabilitation, incapacitation, restitution, etc) that are described there.
6. Lastly, on the more cosmetic side, the spelling has been unnecessarily Americanised (Americanized!) which runs counter to Wikipedia spelling policy. Also, the headings were consistent before (Criminal law history/goals/offences/defences/jurisdictions) which is a better manner of style.
7. It would be a positive next step to see additional material being put in. In the legal pages that means case references, statute references, discussion of substantive legal material. It would be welcome if this can be incorporated, and in some cases displace what is already there, if it improves the treatment of the issues which are common to every country. Wik idea 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've created Criminal law/Wikidea version for Wikidea to play with, since he seems to think he can't fix the article under the framework of edits made by eleven other editors. I invite him to edit this version to his heart's content, and, when he is finished, he can present the version to the talk page and ask for consensus to rewrite this version to reflect his preferred version. THF 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Wik idea 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Minor cleanup: 'Death by capital punishment' is gramatically redundant. Capital punishment necessarily involves death, so there's not much point basically saying 'death may be inflicted by death'. LudBob 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Doesn't seem to mention compulsory labour. James500 ( talk) 13:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Someone qualified the discussion in the article about mala in se vs. mala prohibita with:
What sense of "common law" are they referring to? And what jursidictions used to recognize common law but don't anymore? I can't think of any. -- SJK —(Undated. Added 15:51, 25 February 2002 UTC by Conversion script.)
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)
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)
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)
—The unsigned section heading above was added by 67.177.56.117 ( talk · contribs) 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC).
The following although partially POV perhaps, contains the valid fact that a defendant with resources must pay for his own defence. Further this directly implies a more lucrative situation for the lawyers, as the defendant is forced to pay whatever it takes to save himself. This fact and its obvious implication belong on this page:
The state pays for the prosecution, whereas the defendant must pay for his own defense. This brings a very lucrative situation to the lawyer, since the defendant will pay anything to save himself. But in almost all but the most unusual cases the resources of the state far outstrip the resources of the defendant. This explains why the USA has far and away more people locked away than any country on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.157.143 ( talk • contribs) 7:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (" LegalEagle1798 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" added 2 weeks later.) ("explains" changed to "helps explain" at 06:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) by 24.12.208.181 ( talk · contribs))
This issue is fundumental and does not belong in legal aid anyway as that applies to indigent defendants. The fact that a defendant must pay for his own defense and is confronted by the full resources of the state is the cornerstone of criminal justice system in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (" LegalEagle1798 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" added 2 weeks later.)
Dont you see your whole statement here is irrelevant?????? The point is that the defendant, represented by a private attorney, is opposed by the vast resources of the state. This does not make for justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There are exactly zero defendants defended by the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a fact that the vast resources of the state are alligned against the resources of the individual in criminal law in the USA. This implies a very lucrative situation for the lawyers as the defendant is compelled to pay anything to save himself, and it does not imply justice as the resources of the state are much greater than the resources of the individual.
Further, a defense funded by the state, and being actually defended by the state are two very different things entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 ( talk • contribs) 00:55 & 01:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have read and reread your words here and I fail to see how you have disproved my statement on this matter. Apparently your argument is that since lawyers that defend indigent defendants are poorly paid, poorly paid at least in relation to other lawyers, that this cannot be a lucrative situation for lawyers. You have given no evidence that lawyers that represent criminal defendants with resources are poorly paid, and the logic of the situation suggests that such lawyers make a big buck. These defendants with resources are are forced to pay anything to save themselves. We know for a fact that lawyers that defend wealthy defendants make a fortune.
If anything you have only proved a third implication of the main premise, the poor defendants get the worst attorneys. This is because it is against human nature for the better attorneys to take the worst paying jobs. So let me repeat my statement with your new implication.
It is a fact that the vast resources of the state are alligned against the resources of the individual in criminal law in the USA. This implies a very lucrative situation for the lawyers as the defendant is compelled to pay anything to save himself, this also implies that poor defendants will get the worst lawyers since defending indigent defendants pays less than other lawyer jobs, and it does not imply justice as the resources of the state are much greater than the resources of the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEagle1798 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (" LegalEagle1798 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)" added later.)
Inquisitorial system LegalEagle1798 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In 2004 there were 14 million people arrested in the USA according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report. There are two million people in jail in the USA. There is plenty of money in criminal law and it is silly to claim otherwise.
To the first poster here, you have missed the very important point that in inquisitorial systems it is the responsibility of the state to defend the defendant, whereas in an adversarial system such as the United States exactly zero defendants are defended by the state. To the second poster, this absurd system where the vast resources of the state are pitted against the resources of the individual cannot be made right by the caveat that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Let's start by looking at Michael Jackson case. There is no doubt that the specific charges leveled at Jackson in this case were extremely weak. The victim in this case had zero credibility. Perhaps a different case with a different victim would have had some merit, but that is completely beside the point. The specific charges made against Jackson in this case were extraordinarily weak.
This case alone with the huge publicity it generated disproves your main premise that a criminal defense typically becomes necessary only when the state has a strong case against the accused. Even if you have great celebrity and enormous resources, you must still fear that the state will prosecute you relying on a complaint with little merit. If you have ordinary resources and the state ensnares you with a complaint that lacks merit, and this can happen for a myriad of reasons, you are in serious trouble.
The OJ Simpson case shows that the state cannot be relied on to do its job properly in a criminal case in the adversarial system. At basically every stage and level of the investigation and trial in this case the state proved its incompetence. This was a case that was receiving enormous publicity and all of the players knew that their actions would receive greater scrutiny than in the run of the mill case. A strong case can be made that the incompetence and dysfunction on display in this trial merely reflected the general incompetence and dysfunction that happens day in and day out throughout the adversarial system of justice in the United States.
In the adversarial system the state abrogates all responsibility to defend those accused of crimes. The individual is left to his own resources against the vast resources of the state, and somehow this is all called justice by the caveat that the defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This all does not work in theory and in the real world it works worse. LegalEagle1798 22:04, 4 February & 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
how the CHAT effects the criminal drugs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.26.226 ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) — (Posted by 82.58.198.245, 11:56 - 12:08, 15 January 2007 UTC)
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. :) Wik idea 08:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
The Wikidea reverted introduction:
is redundant and not especially helpful. I prefer the shorter version, which is more in keeping with the spirit of WP:LEAD. THF 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I am worried that the changes made recently have not improved the page at all.
1. A substantial amount of well referenced material has been deleted. This is not right, because at the very least it should be saved somewhere else. Just one example is the paragraph on necessity because it was said it was a marginal topic. Please see the main article. In fact it's quite a hot topic!
2. Separate jurisdictions should not appear at the top. On the Wikiproject law, the idea is to create a page which is cross-jurisdictional, so a general discussion should be the starting point.
3. That said, obviously to begin with the material there is about the English speaking world. This is partly inevitable on the English wikipages, but it perhaps states the obvious to put up an unsightly tag. I agree that as much information, well referenced from an expert should be brought in, and I encourage everyone with such knowledge to participate.
4. The introduction must summarise the article, as an overview, as is proscribed by WP:LEAD. That requires more than a small paragraph. I agree that the former introduction may have been too conversational, but let's work with that rather than chopping it, and keep the relevant links to the article's discussion.
5. The section now entitled "Punishment" is inadequate precisely because there are different goals that criminal law may aim to achieve. Punishment for offences is indeed a very strong strand of theory, but that goes along side the others (rehabilitation, incapacitation, restitution, etc) that are described there.
6. Lastly, on the more cosmetic side, the spelling has been unnecessarily Americanised (Americanized!) which runs counter to Wikipedia spelling policy. Also, the headings were consistent before (Criminal law history/goals/offences/defences/jurisdictions) which is a better manner of style.
7. It would be a positive next step to see additional material being put in. In the legal pages that means case references, statute references, discussion of substantive legal material. It would be welcome if this can be incorporated, and in some cases displace what is already there, if it improves the treatment of the issues which are common to every country. Wik idea 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've created Criminal law/Wikidea version for Wikidea to play with, since he seems to think he can't fix the article under the framework of edits made by eleven other editors. I invite him to edit this version to his heart's content, and, when he is finished, he can present the version to the talk page and ask for consensus to rewrite this version to reflect his preferred version. THF 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Wik idea 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Minor cleanup: 'Death by capital punishment' is gramatically redundant. Capital punishment necessarily involves death, so there's not much point basically saying 'death may be inflicted by death'. LudBob 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Doesn't seem to mention compulsory labour. James500 ( talk) 13:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)