Categories
Criminal Justice

Do you support this process?

1. Explain how a person is determined to be an expert witness in criminal court and how an expert is different than a lay witness.
2. Both Daubert and Fry rules require scientific judgment in which a judge determines what scientific evidence is admissible. Do you support this process? Why or why not?
Write a minimum of 5 sentences in both of your answers.

Categories
Criminal Justice

Please start with your first paragraph.

You will write a reaction paper based on the material covered in class and one scholarly research article pertaining to policing in the United States. The scholarly research article must come from the list below (you can download for free at lib.utsa.edu).
For this writing assignment, you are expected to write an essay in which you will provide your thoughts on original research and its implications for the general understanding of the functioning of police in the United States today. You will identify the article that you selected and briefly describe the background on the topic, the importance of the topic, the research question/hypothesis guiding the research article (approximately 1 paragraph). Then, you will briefly describe the study and the results of the study (approximately 1 paragraph). Next, you will discuss the implications of this research as it relates to material covered in class and broader policy implications (approximately 2 paragraphs). You should conclude with a discussion of additional research that should be conducted related to policing (do not restate arguments of authors) and how policing can be improved going forward with additional, related research (approximately 1 paragraph). The student should not simply restate the arguments of the authors. This will result in reduced points as it will demonstrate a lack of original thought and effort. Furthermore, the student should relate the findings of the study to our larger study of the Criminal Justice System, including the goals of punishment, the functions of police, and the push between a due-process and crime-control models. Students that integrate class readings and lecture material will be evaluated more highly as it will indicate the student’s own reaction to the paper and not repetition of the author’s original arguments.
Assignment requirements:
-State which article you read in your assignment and cite it properly
-2-3 page double-spaced essay (anything over three pages will not be read)
-Use APA format for in-text citations and references (your should have at least one citation – the article you read AND you should plan to cite class readings as necessary)
-One inch margins, size 12 Times New Roman font
-Title page with your name and date (not counted as one of 3 pages) – there is no need to repeat your name and title on the first page of your written essay. Please start with your first paragraph.

Categories
Criminal Justice

A financial specialist oversees fiscal management for the government or security agency.

Content
Summative Assessment: Accounting Method Recommendation
A financial specialist oversees fiscal management for the government or security agency. He or she performs audits and maintains compliance.
STEP 1: Imagine you are a financial specialist in your home state or local government criminal justice agency. Your agency director has received an audit report discrepancy that identified the agency was using a mixture of cash basis and accrual accounting methods. Your director wants to implement only one method and has asked you to develop a recommendation.
STEP 2: Write a 525- to 700-word recommendation in which you:
Summarize each accounting method, including the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
Identify which accounting method you recommend the agency should implement—cash-basis, accrual, or modified accrual—and explain why you selected that method.
Explain how your chosen accounting method aligns with fiscal management strategies.
STEP 3: Cite at least 2 outside references to support your assignment.
Step 4: Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines to include, at a minimum, the APA cover page, Introduction, level headers/titles for each required assignment discussion point, Conclusion, and Reference page.

Categories
Criminal Justice

The district court found, and edwards does not dispute the finding, that this particular model was designed to be narrow enough to travel through tight spots, such as down small alleyways and trails or through backyard gates.

make a case brief of the case below
39 F.4th 1025
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jonathan EDWARDS; Carla Edwards, Plaintiffs – Appellants
v.
SKYLIFT, INC., Defendant – Appellee
Filed: July 12, 2022
James Ryan Fowler, Eric G. Jensen, Potts Law Firm, Houston, TX, Robert M.N. Palmer, Potts Law Firm, Springfield, MO, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Leon Holmes, John E. Tull, III, Thomas Hartley Wyatt, Quattlebaum & Grooms, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
After Jonathan Edwards was injured by a machine that Skylift, Inc., manufactured and sold, he sued Skylift claiming that the machine was defective and unreasonably dangerous and that Skylift negligently designed it. The district court rejected these claims and granted summary judgment to Skylift—a determination that Edwards appeals. Reviewing his contentions de novo, see Apex Oil Co. v. Jones Stephens Corp., 881 F.3d 658, 660 (8th Cir. 2018), we affirm.
The accident occurred while Edwards was employed by Entergy Arkansas, LLC. On the night of the accident, he was part of a crew of employees that was cleaning storm debris in a Little Rock neighborhood. To assist with the cleanup, the crew used a digger derrick that Skylift manufactured in 2010 and later sold. The district court found, and Edwards does not dispute the finding, that this particular model was designed to be narrow enough to travel through tight spots, such as down small alleyways and trails or through backyard gates. The machine’s top-heaviness can render it unstable in certain circumstances.
The machine had a boom that could be raised and rotated. To ensure that it remained stable while the boom was in operation, the machine featured an interlock system that prevented the user from operating the boom unless the user deployed the machine’s stabilizing outriggers. But the user could override the interlock system with the flip of a switch located on the machine. Skylift’s expert testified that the override switch isn’t intended for operator use in the field but is installed so that certain parts of the machine can be accessed during maintenance.
Skylift warned users not to operate the boom without the outriggers deployed. The machine’s operations manual said, in red capital letters sandwiched between two red “WARNING” alerts, that the “boom must remain in stowed position until outriggers are deployed.” Meanwhile, Entergy gave its employees a training manual informing them that “outriggers shall be used to level and stabilize the vehicle before the boom is lifted.” It also trained its employees on the use of diggers like the one here and on the proper use of outriggers, specifically instructing them that “[o]utriggers shall always be used.”
At the time of the accident, Edwards was rigging a downed pole to the digger derrick’s boom while another Entergy employee, Jeremy Gray, operated the digger derrick. Gray intentionally flipped the override switch and moved the boom without first deploying the outriggers. The machine became unstable and tipped over on top of Edwards, seriously injuring him.
Edwards claims that the machine contained design defects that rendered it unreasonably dangerous. More specifically, he asserts that the machine’s override switch should have been accessible only by a key that should not be taken into the field, or that the machine should have sounded alarms or flashed light to warn bystanders that a user had flipped the override switch.
Arkansas substantive law applies in this diversity case. See Apex Oil, 881 F.3d at 660. Under that law, the manufacturer or seller of a product is strictly liable for damages if it supplies a product that is “in a defective condition that rendered it unreasonably dangerous,” and the defective condition proximately causes harm to a person or to property. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-116-101(a). After determining that the machine was not defective, the court also held that the machine was not unreasonably dangerous because Edwards, Gray, and the rest of the crew knew the hazards of operating the machine without deploying the outriggers. Edwards does not dispute that the crew knew of this danger, and he bears the burden of proving that the machine was unreasonably dangerous. See Pilcher v. Suttle Equip. Co., 365 Ark. 1, 223 S.W.3d 789, 794 (2006).
We agree with the court’s conclusion that Edwards has not produced sufficient evidence to support a finding that the digger derrick was unreasonably dangerous as Arkansas defines that phrase, and so we need not decide whether the machine’s design was defective. A product is unreasonably dangerous under Arkansas law if it is “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary and reasonable buyer, consumer, or user who acquires or uses the product, assuming the ordinary knowledge of the community or of similar buyers, users, or consumers as to its characteristics, propensities, risks, dangers, and proper and improper uses.” See Ark. Code. Ann. § 16-116-202(7)(A); see also Apex Oil, 881 F.3d at 661. The definition goes on to emphasize the importance of a product user’s actual knowledge, and requires a factfinder to consider “any special knowledge, training, or experience possessed by the particular buyer, user, or consumer or which he or she was required to possess.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-116-202(7)(A). According to Arkansas courts, this means that where the record reveals that “the actual plaintiff sitting in the courtroom” subjectively knew that the use in question was dangerous, then it is the plaintiff’s subjective knowledge, rather than that of an ordinary user, that controls. See Mason v. Mitcham, 382 S.W.3d 717, 720 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Berkeley Pump Co. v. Reed-Joseph Land Co., 279 Ark. 384, 653 S.W.2d 128, 133 (1983)).
The record here shows that Edwards, Gray, and the rest of the cleanup crew all knew that operating the machine without deploying the outriggers was dangerous. Yet Gray flipped the override switch without doing so. Given this knowledge of the danger at issue, we agree with the district court that the product was not unreasonably dangerous, i.e., “dangerous to an extent beyond that which” was actually contemplated by the machine’s users.
Edwards does little to confront this glaring deficiency in his claim, focusing instead on the feasibility of adding certain features to the machine that he says would have prevented the accident. While that approach may work in other jurisdictions, it is not at home in a jurisdiction like Arkansas whose relevant statute adopts a so-called “consumer expectations” standard, see Mason, 382 S.W.3d at 720; see also Robert F. Thompson, The Arkansas Products Liability Statute: What Does “Unreasonably Dangerous” Mean in Arkansas?, 50 Ark. L. Rev. 663, 666 (1998), a standard taken “substantially verbatim” from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. See Berkeley Pump, 653 S.W.2d at 131. And under that standard, only dangers beyond the contemplation of the buyers and users will render a product unreasonably dangerous. Since Edwards and the rest of the crew knew the danger of operating the digger derrick’s boom without first deploying the outriggers, under Arkansas law, the machine wasn’t unreasonably dangerous.
Edwards resists this conclusion with one argument that warrants additional discussion. He says that Skylift is arguing that the machine’s danger was open and obvious but that Arkansas courts have expressly declined to adopt an open-and-obvious rule that would permit manufacturers and sellers to supply obviously defective and unreasonably dangerous products. See Forrest City Mach. Works, Inc. v. Aderhold, 273 Ark. 33, 616 S.W.2d 720, 722–23 (1981). The district court did not have an opportunity to address this argument because Edwards did not raise it until his reply brief to our court. In fact, in his response to Skylift’s motion for summary judgment before the district court, he actually argued that the override switch “does not rise to the level of open and obvious.”
Edwards misstates Skylift’s position. Skylift simply maintains that Edwards knew the risks the machine posed and so he failed to make out a case under the statute. If Edwards is intimating that our conclusion in Skylift’s favor necessarily implies that we are endorsing a discredited defense, he is off the mark. Our conclusion rests squarely on Edwards’s actual knowledge and owes nothing to an inference that Edwards knew or should have known of a danger because it was open and obvious, cf. Lockley v. Deere & Co., 933 F.2d 1378, 1382 (8th Cir. 1991); see also Larson Mach., Inc. v. Wallace, 268 Ark. 192, 600 S.W.2d 1, 8 (1980), and in fact it wasn’t as Edwards admits. The Arkansas courts, as do we for that matter, routinely apply the plain statutory language and hold that defendants are entitled to judgment when a plaintiff fails to show that a product was not unreasonably dangerous given the knowledge of the actual plaintiff or ordinary user of the product. That is all we do here. See, e.g., Apex Oil, 881 F.3d at 661; Mason, 382 S.W.3d at 720; Purina Mills, Inc. v. Askins, 317 Ark. 58, 875 S.W.2d 843, 847 (1994); Berkeley Pump, 653 S.W.2d at 133.
We now turn to Edwards’s claim that Skylift negligently designed the machine. In his complaint Edwards asserted that Skylift was negligent both in its design of the machine and in failing to warn of its dangers. But Edwards clarifies on appeal that he is not pursuing a failure-to-warn claim “related to any operator’s manuals or stickers on the machine itself.” He is instead maintaining that the machine’s failure to include audio or visual warnings are shortcomings in the machine’s design. We therefore take him to be raising a single negligence claim based on the machine’s design rather than asserting two separate negligence claims, one based on design and the other based on a failure to warn.
Arkansas recognizes that a plaintiff may assert both strict-liability and negligence claims in a product-liability action. See W.M. Bashlin Co. v. Smith, 277 Ark. 406, 643 S.W.2d 526, 529 (1982). The Arkansas Supreme Court has explained that negligence occurs when “the defendant has failed to use the care that a reasonably careful person would use under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence in the case.” See Wagner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 370 Ark. 268, 258 S.W.3d 749, 754 (2007). To demonstrate negligence, the plaintiff must show that the *1030 defendant breached a legal duty to the plaintiff, and that the breach proximately causes the plaintiff harm. See id. at 753–54.
No one disputes that Gray used the digger derrick improperly and that the machine was safe when properly used. It is also undisputed that Skylift adequately warned against using the machine in the unsafe manner that it was used here, and that if Skylift’s instructions had been heeded, the accident would not have happened. Edwards admits that the machine was intended to be used by, and actually was used by, people who had been trained to use the machine properly and who actually knew that using the machine without its outriggers was dangerous. And Edwards does not convincingly argue that the machine fell short of contemporary industry standards; in fact, Edwards’s expert may well have admitted they satisfied those standards. As the Arkansas Supreme Court once explained, “[r]ealization after an accident that a machine might have been manufactured in a different way to possibly eliminate the accident should not bear on the determination of negligence.” See Verson Allsteel Press Co. v. Garner, 261 Ark. 133, 547 S.W.2d 411, 415 (1977). We think a similar hindsight bias is at work here in Edwards’s argument. We therefore agree with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that Skylift negligently designed the digger derrick.
Finally, Edwards challenges the district court’s failure to consider an affidavit he submitted and an affidavit submitted by his expert on the ground that those affidavits were shams. “An affidavit is a sham affidavit if it contradicts prior testimony or is a sudden and unexplained revision of testimony that creates an issue of fact where none existed before,” but this does not include an affidavit that “merely explains portions of a prior deposition that may have been unclear.” See Button v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp., 963 F.3d 824, 830 (8th Cir. 2020). Reviewing the affidavits ourselves and the parties’ arguments about them, we fail to see how, even if the court did err (a matter we do not decide), those affidavits would affect the outcome of this case. We see nothing in them that calls into question our determinations that the machine was not unreasonably dangerous under Arkansas law or that Skylift did not negligently design it, and so we do not think reversal is warranted.
Affirmed.
All Citations
39 F.4th 1025

Categories
Criminal Justice

These must be cited both in text as well as at the end of the document.

No directly quoted material may be used in this project paper.
Resources should be summarized or paraphrased with appropriate in-text and Resource page
1. Explain what a search warrant is, why it is necessary, and how it it used to obtain digital evidence.
2. From the following list choose 3 digital items that would hold data.
List: Cellphone, Laptop, USB memory stick, Plug and Display Docking Station, Game System, Keyboard, Desktop Computer system, Monitor, External Hard drive
For each item:
Describe the item and explain what potential use the item would be within an investigation (e.g., what type of data that item might hold and where it may be stored on the device, and why the data may be important)
How would you package the items, each individually as evidence being specific as to the materials used and the process of documentation. With each, describe the steps that would be taken to collect the items (with emphasis on the care and handling, and packaging of each item consistent with digital forensic best practices described in the module content/weekly readings) at the scene. You should document these steps in a detailed way that will mitigate questions, concerns, or a basic lack of information that will call your processes into question in court.
3. What are the differences in acquisition of data from a live (turned on) system, compared to one that not on (turned off) at the time you encounter it.
Format Requirements
Paper must be double spaced, 11 or 12 pt font and 1” margins all around.
All APA 7th edition format requirements must be followed (cover page, in text citations, reference page). Refer to APA/UMGC – learning resources found in the content page of this course.
You must have resources to support your thoughts/opinions/information. These must be cited both in text as well as at the end of the document. Your paper should not contain direct quotes, sourced material must be paraphrased.

Categories
Criminal Justice

Race/ethnicity

Example & Instructions are also attached.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Step 1: At the very top of your assignment, write the hypothesis that you came up with (and that has been approved/revised by your instructor) for Lab Assignment 2. (Already Done For You)
Step 2: Identify your independent (also known as the predictor variable) and dependent variable (also known as the outcome variable).
Step 3: Conceptualize/define each variable. Once again, it may help to reference the sample articles that I have provided you.Step 4: Identify several control variables (a min. of 4). Recall from your stats methods in CJ courses (CRJU 4060 & CRJU 4061) that control variables are those that might influence the outcome (i.e., dependent variable). They are typically demographic characteristics but they can also include many others. Here is a list of common control variables:
Gender
Race/ethnicity
Age
Socioeconomic status
Marital status
Etc.
Also, keep in mind that control variables cannot also be your independent or dependent variable. For example, if gender is your independent or dependent variable, then it cannot also be listed as a control variable.
Step 5: Next to each listed control variable, explain why it should be included

Categories
Criminal Justice

Do you think any of those stressors contribute to juvenile delinquency?

1) Read about/listen to information about the changing American family: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1067312 (Links to an external site.). Do you think life is easier or harder for families now than in previous generations? What do YOU think are the 3 top stressors for American families today? Do you think any of those stressors contribute to juvenile delinquency? Explain your answer.
2)
http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/reform/ch2_j.html (Links to an external site.)
What do you think about juveniles in adult prisons? Find a case where a juvenile was tried and sentenced as an adult. Share your thoughts on that. Should juveniles be tried as adults? When? For what crimes? What re the positives and negatives?

Categories
Criminal Justice

The brutal consequences of the phenomenon, from two families who lost their children to suicide, to a mother whose daughter was incarcerated after bringing a firearm on to her school bus.

A phenomenon of bullying in U.S. schools. Intimate, personal glimpses into the lives of children and teens living through and dying as a result of bullying. The brutal consequences of the phenomenon, from two families who lost their children to suicide, to a mother whose daughter was incarcerated after bringing a firearm on to her school bus. In recent events such as the Uvalde elementary school shooting is another event that has not been explained. Using the three-pronged approach create a power point presentation that you believe will be beneficial to school shootings in your community. You should have a minimum of three slides however, I believe you should include more to address the crisis. Each slide should demonstrate how to effectively approach the problem.The three-pronged approach to school security encompasses crisis planning, security technology, and school/law enforcement/community partnerships. If needed look up information or use attached powerpoint to help create presentation. On the first page include my name : Brianna Harper. ALSO put the title on the first page.

Categories
Criminal Justice

3- share 3 things that you learned from this module, or that you found interesting.

The purpose of this assignment is for students to provide a quick “3-2-1” reflection on the module material and how they were able to achieve the module learning objectives. This assignment is constructed in a blog format, but is not a traditional blog.
Assignment:
Respond to the following “3-2-1” Question Prompts in reference to defining criminology and understanding the importance of studying crime:
3- Share 3 things that you learned from this module, or that you found interesting.
2- Share 2 things that were muddled, or you did not quite understand.
1- Share 1 “Ah-Ha” moment that you experienced during this module. This should be something that may have surprised you.
Responses should be relatively short, but specific, and exclusive to the WEBSITE resources and learning objectives.
Open attached link below, create a 3-2-1 reflection based off reading.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-10-20/…

Categories
Criminal Justice

Social justice reform groups have been formed to demand change and accountability within the criminal justice system.

In the past decade, operational policies of police agencies across the United States have been steadily called into question in response to incidents involving alleged racially biased policing. Social justice reform groups have been formed to demand change and accountability within the criminal justice system.
Research a specific incident involving police officer conduct that has been called into question.
Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper in which you do the following:
Identify and briefly describe the incident.
Explain what ethical codes would guide the officer in an ethical response to this situation and how these codes relate to morality and legal responsibility in this incident.
Explain whether there were any policy violations or policies that may warrant change considering the incident.
Describe the handling of the situation by the criminal justice system. Were any changes made based upon the incident? If so, were those changes affected by outside influences or pressure?
Determine through your research whether the situation was handled appropriately in the criminal justice system, or if there was a better course of action. Justify your answer.
Reference at least 2 scholarly sources in addition to the textbook.
Format your paper according to APA guidelines.