Assignment 1: Criminal Conduct and Criminal Law
Due Week 4 and worth 140 points
According to the text, crime has been part of the human condition since people began to live in groups. Ancient documents indicate that conduct we now call murder, theft, or robbery was identified as criminal by civilizations that existed thousands of years ago. Criminal laws regulate human conduct and tell people what they can and cannot do and, in some instances, what they must do under certain circumstances. In this assignment, you will explore different types of criminal conduct and the goals of criminal law.
Write a four to six (4-6) page paper in which you:
- Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position.
- Explain the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Next, support or criticize the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad.
- Argue for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Provide a rationale to support your response.
- Identify the four (4) goals of criminal law, and discuss the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons.
- Use at least three (3) quality academic resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar type Websites do not qualify as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
- Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
- Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
- Describe the nature and history of American criminal law.
- Explain the role of individuals and federal, state, and local government agencies in crime fighting and prosecution of criminal offenses.
- Analyze the essential legal elements of criminal conduct.
- Use technology and information resources to research issues in criminal law.
- Write clearly and concisely about criminal law using proper writing mechanics.
Click here to view the grading rubric.
| Points: 140 | Assignment 1: Criminal Conduct and Criminal Law | ||||
| Criteria |
Unacceptable |
Meets Minimum Expectations 60-69% D |
Fair |
Proficient |
Exemplary |
| 1. Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position. Weight: 25% |
Did not submit or incompletely determined whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale to support your position. | Insufficiently determined whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Insufficiently provided a rationale to support your position. | Partially determined whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Partially provided a rationale to support your position. | Satisfactorily determined whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Satisfactorily provided a rationale to support your position. | Thoroughly determined whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Thoroughly provided a rationale to support your position. |
| 2. Explain the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Next, support or criticize the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad. Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or incompletely explained the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Did not submit or incompletely supported or criticized the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad. | Insufficiently explained the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Insufficiently supported or criticized the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad. | Partially explained the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Partially supported or criticized the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad. | Satisfactorily explained the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Satisfactorily supported or criticized the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad. | Thoroughly explained the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Thoroughly supported or criticized the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad. |
| 3. Argue for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Provide a rationale to support your response. Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or incompletely argued for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale to support your response. | Insufficiently argued for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Insufficiently provided a rationale to support your response. | Partially argued for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Partially provided a rationale to support your response. | Satisfactorily argued for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Satisfactorily provided a rationale to support your response. | Thoroughly argued for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Thoroughly provided a rationale to support your response. |
| 4. Identify the four (4) goals of criminal law, and discuss the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons. Weight: 20% |
Did not submit or incompletely identified the four (4) goals of criminal law, did not submit or incompletely discussed the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons. | Insufficiently identified the four (4) goals of criminal law, insufficiently discussed the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons. | Partially identified the four (4) goals of criminal law, partially discussed the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons. | Satisfactorily identified the four (4) goals of criminal law, satisfactorily discussed the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons. | Thoroughly identified the four (4) goals of criminal law, thoroughly discussed the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons. |
| 5. 3 references Weight: 5% |
No references provided | Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. | Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. | Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. | Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
| 6. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10% |
More than 8 errors present | 7-8 errors present | 5-6 errors present | 3-4 errors present | 0-2 errors present |
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
