We had our 2 Constitutional law lectures today. The lectures were about the rule of law. There were some things in the lecture that were repeated a lot like the fact that judges must only interpret the law and not legislate. Another point that was repeated is that we are all under law. This applies to the police as well. For example they can not arrest you without the necessary powers. The lectures were quite interesting. We have our 3 hour exam in a few weeks which is being mentioned already. I need to start going through all of my notes and start reading a lot more.
NEED TO GET MARK RYANS BOOK
Friday 31 October 2008
Thursday 30 October 2008
Thursday 30th October 2008
Today I had to be in at 9 for 102CRM Controlling Crime with Graham. We were looking at theories of under-control. A theory of under-control is “A group of theories that attempt to explain why some people break the rules of social conduct that others must accept and conform to”. We looked at 3 different theories.
• Social disorganisation theory – social and urban change sweep away the processes that normally regulate offending behaviour
• Neutralisation theory – most people learn the norms and values of society but also learn to rationalise (neutralise) their violation
• Control theory – some people feel less constrained by the norms and values of society and so feel more free to deviate from them
(Copied from the slides)
We also looked at some of Durkheim’s work on integration and regulation.
Summary of the lecture:
• Under-control is based on the assumption that everyone is in agreement on right and wrong
• Assumes unanimity of norms and values in society
• Some aspects of under-control have value in explaining some crime and criminality
After the lecture, we had a few hour break before we had Tim Turner for our first proper workshop on out self study module. I have decided to try and see if people with schizophrenia are more likely to commit crime. Tim said that this was too wider topic and it would be better to concentrate on a specific crime so I have decided to look at the link between schizophrenia and violent crime especially homicide. It was good to finally get to talk to Tim about the unit and we have to have a 200 word abstract of our final assessment done for our next workshop which is on 27th November (mummy’s birthday)!!!!!
We had a seminar straight after Tim’s workshop for the lecture this morning. It’s getting silly now. I think people are turning up to different seminars than they first signed up for and the group is getting bigger every week. ½ the class had to sit on the floor!
The first half of the seminar was good because we looked at an example of a reflective log and what makes it good, and what makes it bad. The log is quite different to mine. It had references to support his/her argument. I did think that some of it was incredibly opinionated which is not so much a bad thing in a reflective log but they were so one sided and would not even consider the other side of the argument which is a bit silly considering how serious the topic was (the death penalty.)
The second half of the seminar was meant to be for looking through our own logs and deciding what sort of grade they would get but we could not do this because ½ of the class did not bring theres or had not done it. This was really annoying for those of us who had done the work because I wanted to know what I need to do differently so I can get a good mark on it. I will email Graham and see if he will go through it for me.
• Social disorganisation theory – social and urban change sweep away the processes that normally regulate offending behaviour
• Neutralisation theory – most people learn the norms and values of society but also learn to rationalise (neutralise) their violation
• Control theory – some people feel less constrained by the norms and values of society and so feel more free to deviate from them
(Copied from the slides)
We also looked at some of Durkheim’s work on integration and regulation.
Summary of the lecture:
• Under-control is based on the assumption that everyone is in agreement on right and wrong
• Assumes unanimity of norms and values in society
• Some aspects of under-control have value in explaining some crime and criminality
After the lecture, we had a few hour break before we had Tim Turner for our first proper workshop on out self study module. I have decided to try and see if people with schizophrenia are more likely to commit crime. Tim said that this was too wider topic and it would be better to concentrate on a specific crime so I have decided to look at the link between schizophrenia and violent crime especially homicide. It was good to finally get to talk to Tim about the unit and we have to have a 200 word abstract of our final assessment done for our next workshop which is on 27th November (mummy’s birthday)!!!!!
We had a seminar straight after Tim’s workshop for the lecture this morning. It’s getting silly now. I think people are turning up to different seminars than they first signed up for and the group is getting bigger every week. ½ the class had to sit on the floor!
The first half of the seminar was good because we looked at an example of a reflective log and what makes it good, and what makes it bad. The log is quite different to mine. It had references to support his/her argument. I did think that some of it was incredibly opinionated which is not so much a bad thing in a reflective log but they were so one sided and would not even consider the other side of the argument which is a bit silly considering how serious the topic was (the death penalty.)
The second half of the seminar was meant to be for looking through our own logs and deciding what sort of grade they would get but we could not do this because ½ of the class did not bring theres or had not done it. This was really annoying for those of us who had done the work because I wanted to know what I need to do differently so I can get a good mark on it. I will email Graham and see if he will go through it for me.
Wednesday 29 October 2008
Wednesday 29th October 2008
Today i was meant to go in for add+vantage at 9 but really didnt feel up to it. They made me drink last night lol.
Tuesday 28 October 2008
Tuesday 28th October 2008
Today we had 2 lectures for Constitutional & Admin Law and a seminar for Study Skills. For the 2 lectures, Maz was away so we had Tim Vollans instead. The lecture was about how law is passed though parliament, normally with the white paper, green paper, and through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We talked about exceptions and how sometimes the house of lords will delay a bill. There are also some acts that have been put though with only the House of Commons. We looked at a case where it was argued that the Hunting Act 2004 is illegal because of the parliament act 1949 that was used to push through the legislation is in itself illegal because of the way it was passed.
In the seminar, we looked at how we should be writing essays for our first year. We looked at how paragraphs should be written and in what order. We also looked at what we should do when we are going to write an essay. How we should plan it, and then what to do when we have finished.
We were told at the beginning of the seminar that it was going to be boring but I thought that some of the information was quite interesting and will be helpful when I come to write my essays.
In the seminar, we looked at how we should be writing essays for our first year. We looked at how paragraphs should be written and in what order. We also looked at what we should do when we are going to write an essay. How we should plan it, and then what to do when we have finished.
We were told at the beginning of the seminar that it was going to be boring but I thought that some of the information was quite interesting and will be helpful when I come to write my essays.
Monday 27 October 2008
Monday 27th October 2008
I only had the one seminar today, no lectures. It was with Tony Colombo for 101CRM, Introducing Criminology. We firstly talked about the meaning of some legal terms, like summary offences, indictable, and either way. We also found out what actus reus means (guilty act) and mens rea (which is guilty mind). You can be prosecuted for actus reus alone, and you do not have to have meant to do it. For example, a speeding fine, the actus reus is there (you broke the speed limit) but you may not have meant to (mens rea).
We then looked at a criminal case. A guy called mike had gone out, got drunk, and decided to kill his partner who he was convinced was having an affair. He caused come damage in the pub, took a bottle of whiskey, watched someone get beaten up and also had to be pulled off of the bar maid. When he got home, he got a knife, and threw it at the shadow in the house believing this to be his partner. In the morning he got arrested for stabbing his daughter to death. He was charged with a series of offences and we had to decide if we thought he would be found guilty in a court of law.
The charges included:
· Criminal damage in the bathroom of the pub,
· Sexual assault of the bare maid,
· Theft of the bottle of whiskey,
· The murder of his partner who was strangled to death,
· The murder of his 2 year old daughter,
· GBH of the guy who he watched get beaten up.
At the end of the seminar we discussed the outcome of the case. The criminal damage, he could have said that he was drunk and needed to use the support of the pipe to stay up. The sexual assault was only meant as friendly flirting, he did steal the whiskey, and there was no evidence that he killed his partner. He did kill his daughter but didn’t mean to kill her. He meant to kill his partner. This is a good example of actus reus. The guilty act was there and there is no need for the mens rea. The GBH, we decided that is it morally wrong to sit back and watch someone get their head kicked in. its now however against the law. You can not be prosecuted for walking away or even watching. There are exceptions, these include if children are involved, and if there is a car accident. You can not walk away from a car accident.
We then looked at a criminal case. A guy called mike had gone out, got drunk, and decided to kill his partner who he was convinced was having an affair. He caused come damage in the pub, took a bottle of whiskey, watched someone get beaten up and also had to be pulled off of the bar maid. When he got home, he got a knife, and threw it at the shadow in the house believing this to be his partner. In the morning he got arrested for stabbing his daughter to death. He was charged with a series of offences and we had to decide if we thought he would be found guilty in a court of law.
The charges included:
· Criminal damage in the bathroom of the pub,
· Sexual assault of the bare maid,
· Theft of the bottle of whiskey,
· The murder of his partner who was strangled to death,
· The murder of his 2 year old daughter,
· GBH of the guy who he watched get beaten up.
At the end of the seminar we discussed the outcome of the case. The criminal damage, he could have said that he was drunk and needed to use the support of the pipe to stay up. The sexual assault was only meant as friendly flirting, he did steal the whiskey, and there was no evidence that he killed his partner. He did kill his daughter but didn’t mean to kill her. He meant to kill his partner. This is a good example of actus reus. The guilty act was there and there is no need for the mens rea. The GBH, we decided that is it morally wrong to sit back and watch someone get their head kicked in. its now however against the law. You can not be prosecuted for walking away or even watching. There are exceptions, these include if children are involved, and if there is a car accident. You can not walk away from a car accident.
Friday 24 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)