NationStates Jolt Archive

I need an current (since xmas) of an important law story, for a project for my Law class (I new I should have taken History...). The story cannot just be "Some guy goes to jail for murder." The story will either have to set a precedence or be about a new law (the law the US made for annoying people via the net has been taken. The story should be about Canada, but if it is very good it could be from another country US but will have to be more important.

bump

I need an current (since xmas) of an important law story, for a project for my Law class (I new I should have taken History...). The story cannot just be "Some guy goes to jail for murder." The story will either have to set a precedence or be about a new law (the law the US made for annoying people via the net has been taken. The story should be about Canada, but if it is very good it could be from another country US but will have to be more important.
Try the Patriot Act. I know its American, but it may be just what you need.

Try the Patriot Act. I know its American, but it may be just what you need.
The Patriot Act would be great, but it is too old to be used in this project.

Its been in recent debates though, since its provisions expired. Just bring it up. :p

Its been in recent debates though, since its provisions expired. Just bring it up. :p
See as on the day my teach assigned the project she said we couldn't use the Patriot Act, I doubt that would go over well.

See as on the day my teach assigned the project she said we couldn't use the Patriot Act, I doubt that would go over well.
How dumb...oh well, you could always try the new Terrorist Act in Britain...unless she banned that too :rolleyes:

How dumb...oh well, you could always try the new Terrorist Act in Britain...unless she banned that too :rolleyes:
Hmm that may be a good one, how old is the Act? When will it be made law?

Its very recent...I have to do an essay on it actually. I am not sure when it becomes law by the way, but I think it has already...I'll know for sure tomorrow :p Look it up on the web.

Its very recent...I have to do an essay on it actually. I am not sure when it becomes law by the way, but I think it has already...I'll know for sure tomorrow :p Look it up on the web.
Google says the Act is from 2000, unless I am just getting an older one over and over. The search did, however, bring up an article about an Anti-Terrorism Act being drafted in Canada.

Do the softwood lumber dispute. The US softwood lumber industry is going to challenge NAFTA's constitutionality.

Do the softwood lumber dispute. The US softwood lumber industry is going to challenge NAFTA's constitutionality.
Got a linky?

The Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act is useless, it was made in 2001.

EDIT: Washington State Dems want 10 max for raping kids you know, looks like a promising article.

Got a linky?

The Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act is useless, it was made in 2001.

Cliky (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137107416213&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851)

There are at least half a dozen angles you can approach it from, and it should make for an interesting project.

Cliky (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137107416213&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851)

There are at least half a dozen angles you can approach it from, and it should make for an interesting project.
Looks like a good story. This would make a good project.

You could choose the legalizing of gay marriage in Canada, but that might be too easy,

High court debates scope of new evidence of innocence (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/01-12-2006/0031002270343fe7.html)

(AP) - WASHINGTON-Paul Gregory House, convicted of murder and on death row, wants to know how much more evidence he has to produce to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a judge to take another look at his case.

Twenty years after House was sentenced to death for killing a neighbor during an attempted rape, DNA testing revealed that semen found on the murder victim's nightgown and underwear belonged to her husband, not House.

On Wednesday, the nation's highest court considered how to treat newly discovered evidence of innocence years after conviction for capital crimes or other felonies.

Originally, House's case had generated excitement in legal circles because it gave the Supreme Court a chance to jump into the national debate over testing of DNA in criminal cases and how courts should weigh advances in evaluations of biological evidence left at crime scenes long ago.

Wednesday's hourlong session before the high court dealt little with the DNA testing, which was not available when House was convicted of kidnapping, trying to rape and then killing Carolyn Muncey, a young mother of two, in rural Tennessee in July 1985.

Instead, the argument highlighted the often messy nature of criminal trials, where defendants get caught lying for inexplicable reasons, experts duel over how to interpret evidence, prosecutors withhold evidence and police fail to pursue all suspects.

For the court, the stakes are high. The justices are being asked to account for advances in science by adjusting legal standards aimed at bringing finality to criminal cases or risk allowing the execution of an innocent people.

In the past decade, Congress and the Supreme Court have taken steps to limit what capital punishment supporters characterized as endless appeals by prisoners.

The advent in recent years of DNA testing has led to numerous exonerations and raised fears among civil libertarians, prosecutors and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that innocent people might be executed, or already have been.

House, who was on parole for a sex offense in Utah when Muncey was killed, was convicted of luring her from her home by telling her that her husband, Hubert, had been hurt in a car accident. Her body was found the next afternoon in an area where witnesses had seen House.

Attorney Stephen Kissinger, who represents House, said House's original lawyer had failed to locate several witnesses who said years later that Hubert Muncey had abused his wife, had fought with her the night of her murder and had confessed later to killing her.

Had the jury had the benefit of the DNA test results, Justice Antonin Scalia said, "I would agree it would have been a much closer case."

In his questioning, however, Scalia, a proponent of curbing inmate appeals, kept the focus on one of the strongest pieces of evidence remaining against House: specks of Muncey's blood found on his jeans.

Kissinger contended Muncey's blood got on House's pants when it was spilled during testing by the FBI. Jennifer Smith, the lawyer for Tennessee, said the blood got on the jeans during the attack.

To accept Kissinger's argument, justices would have to find that lower court judges who reviewed House's new evidence and House's jury were wrong, a notion Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts resisted.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has said she worries about the quality of defense attorneys in capital cases, tried unsuccessfully to move the debate off the blood evidence.

When DNA testing finally was considered, Justice David Souter said he believes the semen evidentiary finding would raise significant doubts about House's guilt with "a reasonable juror," the standard that exists now under the law.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned the impact the DNA tests would now have on the prosecution's heavy reliance on the attempted rape in securing a death sentence.

Kennedy, a frequent swing vote on the often divided court, said the DNA testing proved that a key element of the prosecution's case was wrong. At a minimum, Kennedy said, "the sentencing phase is in question."