In the United States, there are two kinds of courts – state courts and federal courts. State courts have been established by each state and are located in cities and counties. In contrast, federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution to handle disputes involving the Constitution and laws which were passed by Congress.

State courts have a lot of power, so most cases involving individuals will be heard in state courts. For example, the state courts will handle cases involving family law disputes, robberies, burglaries, theft and broken contracts. The state courts will not hear cases involving specific federal laws such as criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent and copyrights.

A vast majority of criminal cases involving violations of state laws are heard in state courts, but cases which
involve violations of federal laws can be diverted to federal court. There are some instances where both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. When this occurs, the parties choose whether to go to state or federal court.

A federal crime or federal offense is a crime which is made illegal by federal legislation. In the U.S., people can be prosecuted at either the state or federal level. As stated above, the majority of criminal offenses are prosecuted on the state level; however, a “federal offense” will be prosecuted on in federal court.

Certain aggravated or more serious sex crimes are federal offenses in this country. If a person is convicted of a federal sex crime, they could be facing mandatory minimum sentencing. In addition to spending years in prison, probation or parole, and fines, they are also facing mandatory sex offender registration.

When a person is required to register on the national sex offender registry, their name, address, headshot and description of their offense will be publically posted. This means that anyone can have access to such private information for years to come. Sex offender registration can also limit where you live and where you can be. Limits can be placed on how close you go to a school campus or a public park.

Another less widely known fact about being convicted of a federal sex crime is that you might be sent to a Federal Medical Center, which is a Federal Bureau of Prisons Facility. These facilities treat the terminally ill, the mentally ill and sex offenders. Inmates with a sex offender history are enrolled in the residential Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP-R) or Sex Offender Management Program (SOMP). Whether inmates like it or not, they are expected to submit to these “intensive” treatment programs along with other sex offenders.

What sex crimes fall under the category of federal sex crimes? First of all, most sex crimes involving children such as sexual assault, rape, possession of child pornography or distribution of child pornography are considered federal crimes. The list of federal sex crimes is quite extensive, however some common examples of federal sex crimes include aggravated sexual abuse, repeat offenders, sexual exploitation of children, human trafficking, sexual abuse of a minor, sexual abuse resulting in death, selling or buying children for sexual purposes, and many more.

Being convicted of a federal sex crime can ruin your reputation and your livelihood. Not only would you be facing years in prison, but mandatory sex offender registration as well. Being labeled a “sex offender” will affect your ability to get housing, employment and higher education. No matter what brought you to these charges, it’s essential that you consult with an experienced federal criminal attorney who defends such complex cases.

Guy L. Womack & Associates, P.C. is a federal criminal defenses firm which represents clients throughout the U.S. in federal court cases. When you are being charged with a federal crime, you cannot afford to hire an attorney who has little to no experience in defending federal criminal charges. Your case may be under scrutiny by a large federal agency such as the FBI, DEA or CIA. If this is true, you need a highly respected federal crime defense lawyer by your side. With nearly thirty years legal experience, and a background as a former federal prosecutor, Guy Womack has the requirements you need to defend your case in federal court.

A biblical perspective: abandoning retribution as a doctrine for legal punishment

I. Introduction

The Old Testament is filled with different mandates regarding punishment for certain acts and crimes, a great deal of which includes the penalty of death. Conversely, the New Testament somewhat disregards the Old Testament idea of punishment, in that it became secondary to Jesus’ message of love and redemption. In this respect, both reward and punishment are seen as taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. How do we reconcile these differing views? What are the reasons for the sharp shifts in these fundamental concepts? Moreover, to what extent should our system of criminal law incorporate these biblical models of justice?

II. Criminal Law

Two broad theories of punishment exist which guide our current criminal justice system: utilitarianism and retribution. These theories guide lawmakers in developing general principles of criminal responsibility.

Utilitarianism

From a utilitarian perspective, punishment exists to ensure the continuance of society and to deter people from committing crimes. The primary utilitarianism objective is to augment the total happiness of the community by excluding everything that subtracts from that happiness. There are three distinct forms of utilitarianism: A.

Deterrence

The theory of deterrence suggests that the pain inflicted upon a person who has committed a crime will dissuade the offender (and others) from repeating the crime. Deterrence hinges around the idea that punishment has to be appropriate, prompt, and inevitable. Deterrence protects the social order by sending a message to the public at large. An English judge once defined the standard long ago when he remarked, “Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.” The general theory of deterrence is further divided into two categories. General deterrence describes the effect that punishment has when it serves as a public example that deters people other than the initial offender from committing similar crimes. General deterrence illustrates punishment delivered in order to send a message to everyone that crime doesn’t pay. Specific deterrence describes the punishment of an individual designed to prevent that individual person from committing future crimes. This idea generates from the concept that it is impossible for an individual to commit another crime while they’re in prison. Both forms of deterrence as punishment methods are meant to discourage individuals from recidivating.

B. Incapacitation

Specific deterrence is very similar to and often takes the form of the notion of incapacitation. Incapacitating a known criminal makes it impossible for this individual to commit another crime. If a criminal is confined, executed, or otherwise incapacitated, such punishment will deny the criminal the ability or opportunity to commit further crimes which will harm society. The only total, irrevocable punishment is the death penalty. Other punishments, such as imprisonment, produce only partial and temporary incapacitation. Incapacitation, however, does not decrease offenses of convicts who would have not committed additional offenses anyway. Examples of this would include generally law-abiding citizens who committed a “crime of passion” in a specific, non-recurring situation.

C. Rehabilitation

Advocates of the rehabilitative form of utilitarianism believe that punishment will prevent future crimes by reforming prisoners by providing them with skills and assets that could help them lead a productive life after their release. Supporters of rehabilitation seek to prevent crime by providing offenders with the education and treatment necessary to eliminate criminal tendencies, as well as the skills to become productive members of society. Rehabilitation seeks, by means of education or therapy, to “bring a criminal into a more normal state of mind and into an attitude which would be helpful to society.” Rehabilitation is based on the notion that punishment is to be inflicted on an offender to reform them as to make their re-integration into society easier. This theory is firmly grounded in the belief that one cannot inflict a severe term of imprisonment and expect the offender to be reformed and to able to adjust into society upon his release without some form of help.

Retribution

The theory of retribution is grounded in the belief that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified as a deserved response to a wrongdoing. Unlike utilitarianism, which punishes in order to prevent future harm, retributivists punish because of the wrongdoing. Thus, the criminal gets his “just deserts” regardless of whether the punishment serves to prevent any future crime. An assessment of desert will take into account “both the harm done and the offender’s culpability.” The focus on culpability is based on the “presupposition that people are morally responsible for their actions, and requires the court to take into account mitigating factors or excuses such as diminished capacity, duress, and provocation.” Under a retributive theory of penal law, a convicted defendant is punished simply because he deserves it and for no other purpose. There is no exterior motive such as deterring others from crime or protecting society – the goal is simply to make the defendant suffer in order to pay for his wrongdoing. Some scholars believe that it is entirely natural for an individual to seek revenge and retribution when injured or harmed by another. Thus, one of the primary reasons for the existence of retribution as a doctrine recognizes the reality that people often need to be relieved of their need to retaliate against those who have wronged them. In fact, it can be argued that it is potentially harmful to the state if it does not satisfy these needs and urges. If the people are not satisfied, as history has shown, then people will sometimes take the law into their own hands in the form of mobs and vigilantes.

III. Biblical Concepts of Punishment

The Old Testament is replete with references and examples of God punishing the Israelites for their transgressions. In Genesis God defines that punishment is based upon a belief in the sanctity of life. God instructs the Israelites in several places within the Pentateuch that with respect to certain crimes, the penalty shall be an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” A closer look at this historical tradition, however, seems to teach that this penalty was not to be interpreted literally. Instead, what the Biblical instruction really intended was for the victim of an assault or another crime to receive from the criminal the equivalent value of whatever was taken. Regardless, the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” axiom has become synonymous with harsh retribution and supporters of this theory sometimes justify their viewpoint based on this rationale. As well, how do we properly reconcile the prevailing view under the Mosaic Law with the teaching of Jesus? The scriptures tell us that Jesus asked God to forgive his executioners and promised the repentant thief beside him that they would be together in paradise when being crucified. Jesus also told his followers that they were to forgive their enemies, turn the other cheek when assaulted, refrain from judging others, minister to crime victims, visit prisoners, proclaim release to captives and liberty to the oppressed. All of these concepts seem to be in direct contradiction to the punishment concepts laid out under the Mosaic Law, so analyzing the teaching of Jesus to develop our own theory of punishment would prove worthwhile.

Mosaic Law

According to Hebrew teachings, Moses led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt around 1250 B.C. and received the 10 Commandments from God. The Hebrews then put the commandments and other principles into written form as a code of religious and moral laws known as the Mosaic Law. The laws given were in the context of a treaty with the Israelites so they could live according to God’s plan and engage in a meaningful relationship with Him. The Hebrew word law when translated always has a positive meaning and is commonly identified as the term “instruction.” The law, therefore, was “like an outstretched finger pointing the direction a person should take in life.” The Mosaic Law was explicit in its teaching regarding punishment. The sixth commandment was, “thou shall not commit murder.” Accordingly, the punishment for murder was, “he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” There are 36 eight capital offenses under the Mosaic system detailed in the Pentateuch which prescribed the death penalty. The Mosaic Law even prescribed the death penalty for violating the Sabbath. It would seem on first glance that the Mosaic era centered its system of punishment around principles of retribution. The phrase “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” expressed a principle of justice also known as lex talionis, which in Latin translates to the “law of retaliation.” The literal meaning of this passage would undoubtedly lead one to presume that this calls for punishment very similar to retribution. Prosecutors have even used the phrase in closing arguments in trials to persuade jurors to return particularly harsh punishments, including the death penalty. Accordingly, “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is widely understood to equate to harsh retribution pursuant to a mentality commonly referred to as “Old Testament justice.” However, what the lex talionis actually called for was simply proportionate punishment commensurate with the crime.

If punishment was to be administered, the guilty man was to receive “the number of lashes his crime deserves.” Another passage that disregards the literal interpretation of “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is illustrated by the decree in Exodus how a “person who injured their servant was to let them go free as compensation.” In other words, a free mandate for mutilation was not given. Instead, “the aim was proportionate and not imitative retribution, often by way of compensation or restitution.” From this, it appears that punishment should be imposed on an offender – normally and certainly no more than – in proportion to what their offense deserves. New Testament The Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” is often contrasted with the “turn the other cheek” compassion of the New Testament. Jesus’ teaching in the New Testament never directly concentrates on the subject of what method is best to punish criminals. In fact, it should be noted that Jesus’ main teaching point focuses on the unseen, remarking, “My kingdom is not of this world.” One of the main scriptural references that is readily apparent, which accurately demonstrates this concept is the thief on the cross: Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” It is pertinent to recognize that Jesus’ assurance of salvation only came into effect after the thief died. It should be noted that Jesus did not restore the thief to his status on this earth, which would have thereby recognized his rehabilitation and repentance for his earthly sins. As shown previously, the concepts of justice and proportionality were recognized under the Mosaic Law, while in the New Testament “the virtues of redemption and forgiveness are frequently extolled.” Therefore, what the Old Testament says has to be tempered by the examples of mercy shown by Jesus. Christian interpretation of the biblical passage regarding the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” passage has been heavily influenced by Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Jesus urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Adam P Shore

In this article we take a quick look at the legal procedure that will occur if you have been arrested in the United Kingdom.

If you have been arrested, you will either be remanded in custody or released on bail pending a court hearing.

If your case is tried in the Magistrates Court it will be heard either by a District Judge or a Magistrate and you will be represented by a Solicitor or Barrister.

All criminal cases fall into three types of category- those that can only be dealt with in the Magistrates Court, those that can be dealt with in both the lower court and the Crown Court, and those that can only be heard at the Crown Court.

If you are charged with an offence that can be dealt with either in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court (often referred to as an “either way” case) then there will be a procedure called ‘plea before venue’. Here you indicate to the Court whether you wish to plead Guilty or Not Guilty; the Court then decide if they have sufficient powers to deal with the case and if not the case will be committed to the Crown Court. If the Court decides they have sufficient powers to deal with the case then you will have a choice as to whether to elect a Crown Court trial or not. A solicitor will be able to advise you on this process and the advantages and disadvantages of having a trial in the Magistrates or Crown Court.

If you are charged with an offence that can only be tried in the Crown Court, you will appear in firstly in the Magistrates Court, who will send you for trial to the Crown Court and will decide whether you are to be bailed, or remanded in custody, in the meantime. When you appear at court you will be given a date for your trial. A Jury and a Judge will hear your case and you will be represented by a Solicitor Advocate or Barrister.

If you plead Guilty at the earliest opportunity then you will receive a 1/3 reduction in your sentence. Your Solicitor or Barrister will give you advice on this.

If you plead Guilty or are found Guilty, there may be a delay in sentencing you while the court adjourns for reports to be prepared about you by probation. The judge will read this report before passing sentence.