Criminal Justice – State v Miranda

Using APA formatting, including a face page, in text citations that are APA compliant and a reference page. Cases may be cited per APA or Blue Book.

Criminal Justice – State v Miranda

The best papers will use outside resources of high quality such as case law, law review articles and peer reviewed work. Do not use the text as a resource. Submit a written response to these questions concerning State v. MirandaPreview the document, 715 A.2d 680 (Conn. 1998): [Target Response Length: 250–300 words]: The majority spent considerable time explaining the imposition of a legal duty to act on Mr. Miranda, even though he was not the biological or adoptive parent of the child in this case. How far should such logic be extended? As and discussed by the court, babysitters were included in the class of persons having a legal duty to act on behalf of a child in need in People v. Wong [i] . But often, babysitter are teenagers – sometime the older siblings or cousins of the children entrusted to the sitter, and sometimes having no familial relationship at all. To what standard of care should a 14- or 15-year-old be help if he or she fails to act? [Target Response Length: 500–750 words]: The court included references to parental duties to “express love and affection for the child” and “the duty to furnish social and religious guidance.” Do you agree that these are appropriate responsibilities for the law to place on parents? Why or why not? What are the potential consequences of the latter responsibility for parents who are atheists? Suppose a set of parents fail to provide love and affection for a child who then grows up to be a violent criminal and there is a small army of mental health professionals who were willing to testify under oath that “but for” the parents having failed to provide love to their child, then the child would not have been driven to commit his crimes. Should the parents be held criminally liable for the crimes of the child they “caused” to become a violent criminal? Why or why not? [i] People v. Wong, 182 App. Div.2d 98, 588 N.Y.S.2d 119, rev’d on other grounds, 619 N.E.2d 377 (N.Y. 1993).