Write a case analysis for the Penny Parker scenario
Write a case analysis for the Penny Parker scenario. Using the cases you have covered so far in this course (Miranda v. Arizona, Edwards v. Arizona, Terry v. Ohio, Chimel v. California and Mapp v. Ohio), write a 3-5 page
Write a case analysis for the Penny Parker scenario
Directions
Review the Assignment 05.2: Case Analysis: Penny Parker.
Write a case analysis for the Penny Parker scenario. Using the cases you have covered so far in this course (Miranda v. Arizona, Edwards v. Arizona, Terry v. Ohio, Chimel v. California and Mapp v. Ohio), write a 3-5 page
essay in which you:
More so, identify four legal issues in this case.
Nevertheless, identify the case that governs each issue.
Also, discuss the rule of law provided by that case.
Consequently, apply the rule of law to each issue. Are the officer’s actions permitted under law? Why or why not?
ALSO, discuss the outcome of the defense motions Will this evidence be excluded? Why or why not?
More Details:
Although there is increasing academic recognition of corporations as criminogenic, the criminal legal system has demonstrated difficulties in conceptualising corporate culpability.
Additionally, the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse provides ample evidence of why organisations can and should be criminalised for systemic failures.
More so, i demonstrate that the emphasis upon individualistic subjective culpability
by the criminal legal system does not adequately encapsulate the institutional failings detailed before the Royal Commission.
Whilst mandatory reporting offences are important, these offences do not adequately respond to the kinds of organisational failings identified by the Royal Commission.
I argue in favour of developing a new institutional offence constructed upon realist
concepts of negligence and/or corporate culture that recognises that organisations
are capable of wrongdoing and sufficiently blameworthy to justify the imposition of criminal sanctions.
Lastly, I conclude by arguing that the expressive role of criminal law justifies and requires the criminalisation of this kind of organisational wrongdoing.