Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

From The Perspective of Sociology, Issues Such As Class Can Play A Role

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7

SOCSCI

Deviant behavior is behavior which does not adhere to widely-accepted social


or cultural norms. For example, murder is a form of extreme deviant behavior
which violates the cultural norm which states that it is unacceptable to kill
another human being. There are a number of approaches to the study of
deviance, along with explanations for why deviant behavior occurs, and how it
might be addressed. Numerous colleges and universities offer coursework in
this subject, and there are professional publications dedicated to this topic,
including the creatively named “Deviant Behavior.”

Examples Of Deviant Behavior on wiseGEEK:

 From the perspective of sociology, issues such as class can play a role
in deviant behavior. Theft, a common instance of deviant behavior, could
be said to be driven by sociological pressures such as poverty.
 The symptoms must either be such that they keep the person from
functioning normally in society or cause the person significant
distress. Deviant behavior,behavior that varies from social norms, is not
considered one of the signs of mental illness unless it fits a specific
disorder listed in the DSM.

JUVENILE
1.
moral turpitude n. gross violation of standards of moral conduct,vileness, such
that an act involving moral turpitude was intentionally evil, making the act a
crime. The existence of moral turpitude can bring a more severe criminal charge
or penalty for a criminal defendant.

A phrase used in Criminal Law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to


community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals.
Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness,
or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.
Examples include rape, forgery, Robbery, and solicitation by prostitutes.

Many jurisdictions impose penalties, such as deportation of Aliens and


disbarment of attorneys, following convictions of crimes involving moral
turpitude.

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct


that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good
morals."[1] It appears in U.S. immigration law from the nineteenth century[2]. In
other common law jurisdictions it is dated/obsolete[3].
The concept of moral turpitude escapes precise definition but has been
described as an "act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to
the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and
man."[4] The specific acts that such a concept includes inevitably change over
time, as general public acceptance or abhorrence of issues alters; for example,
until recent times, a man engaged in homosexual behavior was still considered
as engaging in "criminal behavior involving moral turpitude."[5]
The classification of a crime or other conduct as constituting moral turpitude
has significance in several areas of law. First, prior conviction of a crime of moral
turpitude (or in some jurisdictions, moral turpitude conduct, even without a
conviction) is considered to have a bearing on the honesty of a witness and may
be used for purposes of witness impeachment.[6] Second, moral turpitude
offenses may be grounds to deny or revoke a professional license such as a
teaching credential,[7] license to practice law,[8] or other licensed profession.
Third, it is of great importance for immigration purposes, as offenses which are
defined as involving moral turpitude are considered bars to immigration into
the U.S.[9]

Moral turpitude is personal conduct which goes against public morals. A


number of crimes are considered acts of moral turpitude because they
violate community standards in addition to the law. Such conduct is regarded as
a black mark against someone's reputation, and may cause problems in the
future after conviction because people who have been committed of crimes
involving moral turpitude may be regarded as less trustworthy or honorable. A
history of such crimes can, for example, bar people from certain types of
employment or activities.

A number of crimes can fall under the umbrella of moral turpitude, including
murder, fraud, rape, arson, robbery, andcounterfeiting. While someone cannot
be punished specifically for engaging in activity which is considered to be affront
to public morals, he or she can be penalized for the crime itself, potentially
doing jail time, paying fines, and facing other consequences.

An example of moral turpitude would be cannibalism. It has actually been


revered as a tradition in the past, by many island tribes and nations, and yet is a
capital crime of immense depravity in all highly civilized nations. This just goes
to show that a people group can descend low enough to venerate moral
turpitude as a good action.

Once someone's criminal record carries a conviction for a crime involving moral


turpitude, it can become a barrier. Membership in professional organizations
may be denied, and people may not be allowed to practice certain professions if
they have a history of such crimes. Someone who has been convicted of child
molestation, for example, is not allowed to work in an environment where
children are present. Attempting to conceal prior criminal history can be
grounds for penalties as well.

Another situation in which moral turpitude can arise is in the examination of a


witness. If a witness has a history of such crimes, his or her testimony may be
regarded as less reliable. One side or the other on a case can use this
information to discredit a witness, and lawyers must be aware of this when
calling witnesses as they may want to reconsider calling a witness with poor
character, since sometimes such witnesses do more harm than good. People
who are asked to serve as witnesses should make sure that the lawyer
requesting their presence is aware of their history and any barriers to testifying.
A final situation in which moral turpitude can become critical is in immigration
law. Some nations bar immigration to people convicted of crimes involving
moral turpitude, and such crimes can be grounds for deportation as well.
Because immigration law usually does not clearly define which crimes fall under
this umbrella, it can be challenging to determine whether or not a crime is
grounds for deportation or denial of a visa. An immigration lawyer with
experience in this area can assist an immigrant and make sure that she or he is
given a fair chance.

2.
Administrative case is basically a case where you are sueing someone or
someone is sueing you. It has to do with something that happened that there
where no criminal acts committed. 

A Criminal Case are cases that you where either arrested for or you are going in
front of the judge for a ticket. Something that was a criminal act.
Prosecution by the State of a person or organization, for committing
a public wrong considered an offense againstthe State. Standard of
proof for crimes is higher than for civil wrongs (torts) and, for major crimes such
as a murder, guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt (seeproof
beyond a reasonable doubt). Also called criminal suit.
3.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from
being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal
or conviction. At common law a defendant may pleadautrefois
acquit or autrefois convict (a peremptory plea), meaning the defendant has
been acquitted or convicted of the same offense.[1] If this issue is raised,
evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a
preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated, and if it so finds, the
projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In many countries the
guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right; these
include Canada, India, Mexico, and the United States. In other countries, the
protection is afforded by statute law.[3]

Double Jeopardy refers to a legal right defined in the Fifth Amendment of the


United States Constitution that prohibits trying adefendant twice for the same
offense. This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The
double jeopardy clause protects a defendant from three specific violations of
rights.

First, under double jeopardy, a defendant can not be prosecuted a second time
for the same offense after an acquittal. The second right that double jeopardy
protects is the right a defendant has to not be prosecuted a second time for the
same offense after a conviction. Lasly, the same offense can not warrant
multiple punishments, or sentences. The 5th Amendment also states that a
defendant can not be made to testify in his own criminal proceedings.

Being tried twice for the same offense;

Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by


some litigants to get their legal caseheard in the court thought most likely to
provide a favorable judgment. Some states have, for example, become
notorious as plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions and so have become litigation
magnets even though there is little or no connection between the legal issues
and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.
Examples include the attraction of foreign litigants to the United States due to
its expansive acceptance ofpersonal jurisdiction and favorable litigation climate,
and Great Britain for its stricter defamation laws.
The term has become adopted in a wider context for the activity of repeatedly
seeking a venue or willing listener for a concern, complaint or action, until one is
found.

Forum shopping occurs when a plaintiff or defendant have two possible courts where a legal c
which court they believe is going to view their case more favorably and is more likely to decid
procedure but is not entirely eliminated.

When concurrent jurisdiction is available, forum shopping can occur. Jurisdiction refers to the
subject matter and personal jurisdiction to be able to preside over a particular case and make
some legal interest in the subject the dispute is about. Personal jurisdiction means the state o
sufficient enough benefit to the plaintiff and defendant that it is fair for the court to decide w

Sometimes, more than one court has both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdictio
New York, both Florida and New York would have personal jurisdiction over them. If a plaintiff
sue in either Florida court or in New York court. Forum shopping can thus occur when two diff

Forum shopping can also occur when both a state and a federal court have the right to hear a
which means they cannot hear as many cases as state courts that have general jurisdiction. A
of federal law or if the two people involved in the case are from different states and if the cas
federal court has exclusive jurisdiction — such as federal bankruptcy cases — but other times
bring the case in state court.

A plaintiff who brings a lawsuit can consider which court he believes will be best
for him and can bring the case there. For example, if the plaintiff is suing over an
employment dispute that involves both state law and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which is a federal law, the plaintiff could potentially sue in
state or federal court. The defendant, if he does not wish to be in state court,
could then motion to have the case removed to federal court, so he too has the
right to choose his forum.

Double Jeopardy is described as a rule of finality, the laudable purpose of which is to


put to rest the effects of the first prosecution. It is expressed in the legal maxim "nemo
debet bis vexari pro eadem causa" (no man shall be twice vexed for one and the same
cause). [1]

In the phil.

The rule on double jeopardy has a settled meaning in Philippine jurisdiction, as provided
in sec.21, Art.III of the Constitution of the Philippineswhich states that "[n]o person shall
be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." It only means that when a
person is charged with an offense, and the case is terminated either by acquittal or
conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the accused
cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.

Forum shopping is considered a serious offense which can be made by a complainant.


The law in the Philippines explicitly prohibits the filing of more than one case for the
same cause of action in any forum or court of law. The prohibition is done so that the
courts will not be clogged by complaints of people who may file more than one
complaint in an effort to gain a favorable decision in any of the numerous cases filed.

You might also like