The goal of this particular project is to define FBI, learn all about them and what they have to offer. Not only will this report provide the nature of the work and working conditions, but also the benefits and the earnings. Thus, this report will be divided into three distinct sections; the first section will explain the nature of the work and working conditions, the second details the training, other qualifications, and advancement within the FBI, and finally the last section will deal with benefits and their earnings.

 Private detectives and investigators use many methods to determine the facts in a variety of matters. In all cases, private detectives and investigators assist attorneys, businesses, and the public with legal, financial, and personal problems. Private detectives and investigators offer many services, including executive, corporate, and celebrity protection, pre-employment verification, and individual background profiles. They are sometimes hired to investigate individuals to prove or disprove infidelity. The duties of private detectives and investigators depend on the needs of their clients. For example, investigators may carry out long-term covert observation of subjects. Private detectives and investigators often specialize. Their reports reflect information gathered through interviews, investigation and surveillance, and research, including review of public documents. Private detectives and investigators often work irregular hours, because of the need to conduct surveillance and contact people who are not available during normal working hours. Early morning, evening, weekend, and holiday work is common. Investigators generally work alone, but they sometimes work with others during surveillance or when following a subject in order to avoid detection by the subject. Some of the work involves confrontation, so the job can be stressful and dangerous. “The appropriate authority must license detectives and investigators, who carry handguns” (Salzman.J). In most cases, however, a weapon is not necessary, because the purpose of the work is gathering information and not law enforcement or criminal apprehension.

There are no formal education requirements for most private detective and investigator jobs, although many private detectives have college degrees. The majority of States and the District of Colombia require private detectives and investigators to be licensed. Licensing requirements vary, however: seven States Alabama, Alaska,Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota have no statewide licensing requirements, some states have few requirements, and many other States have stringent regulations. For private detective and investigator jobs, most employers look for individuals with ingenuity, persistence, and assertiveness. A candidate must not be afraid of confrontation, should communicate well, and should be able to think on his or her feet. Good interviewing and interrogation skills also are important and usually are acquired in earlier careers in law enforcement or other fields. Training in subjects such as criminal justice and police science is helpful to aspiring private detectives and investigators. Most corporate investigators must have a bachelor’s degree, preferably in a business-related field. The screening process for potential employees typically includes a background check for a criminal history. Some investigators receive certification from a professional organization to demonstrate competency in a field. For example, the National Association of Legal Investigators (NALI) confers the Certified Legal Investigator designation to licensed investigators who devote a majority of their practice to negligence or criminal defense investigations. To receive the designation, applicants must satisfy experience, educational, and continuing-training requirements and must pass written and oral exams administered by the NALI. Most private-detective agencies are small, with little room for advancement. Usually, there are no defined ranks or steps, so advancement takes the form of increases in salary and assignment status.

read comments (0)

 Causation: is the bringing about of a result, and in law it is an element in various tests for legal liability. Most tests for legal liability in criminal and civil law require the plaintiff to have ‘caused’ the result of which the plaintiff complains. For example:

 Murder (criminal law): requires that the accused have caused the victim’s death
 Negligence (civil law): requires that the defendant have caused the harm that befell the plaintiff
 Breach of contract (civil law): requires that the defendant’s breach have caused the plaintiff’s loss.

 If the plaintiff/prosecution cannot establish the causal link between the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s/victim’s harm, then liability will not be established. Causation of an event is neither necessary nor sufficient to create legal liability. Sometimes causation is one part of a multi-stage test for legal liability. For example for the defendant to be held liable for the tort of negligence, the defendant must have (1) owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) breached that duty; (3) by so doing caused damage to the plaintiff; and (4) that damage must not have been too remote. Causation is but one component of the tort. On other occasions causation is the only requirement for legal liability (other than the fact that the outcome is proscribed). For example in the law of product liability, the fact that the defendant’s product caused the plaintiff harm is the only thing that matters. The defendant need not also have been negligent. On still other occasions, causation is irrelevant to legal liability altogether. For example, under a contract of indemnity insurance, the insurer agrees to indemnify the victim for harm not caused by the insurer, but by other parties. Because of the difficulty in establishing causation, it is one area of the law where the case law overlaps significantly with general doctrines of analytic philosophy to do with causation.

read comments (0)

An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.  In older sources, an accomplice was often referred to as an abettor. This term is not in active use, having been replaced by accomplice. At law, an accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. As such, the three accomplices to the bank robbery above can also be found guilty of armed robbery even though only one stole the money.  The fairness of the doctrine that the accomplice is as guilty as the primary offender has been discussed many times, particularly in cases of capital murder. On several occasions, accomplices have been prosecuted for felony murder even though the actual person who committed the murder died at the crime scene or otherwise did not face capital punishment.

Aiding and Abetting: Courts often refer to aiding and abetting as an alternate theory of liability rather than a separate crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, aiding and abetting liability is available in all federal criminal prosecutions; however, the availability and extent of civil aiding and abetting liability varies from statute to statute. Where available, aiding and abetting liability generally requires three elements: 1) an underlying violation by a principal; 2) knowledge of that violation and/or the intent to facilitate the violation; and 3) assistance to the principal in the violation. As indicated by the Supreme Court, “In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant ‘in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.

Some states, including the state of California, have a system that distinguishes between an accessory, an accomplice, and a principal (or co-principal) in a different way. In this system, the difference between an accessory and an accomplice is not as listed above. An accessory would ONLY be someone who aids and abets the principal (the person who committed the crime OR helped in the planning of the crime) to escape justice after the crime has been committed (there is no more accessory “before” and “after” the fact… what was once “accessory before the fact” is now just “co-principal”, and what was once “accessory after the fact” is now just “accessory”. An accomplice is NOT a formal legal term in many states… it is “legal slang”, and denotes ONLY “an accessory or co-principal that agrees to testify against another principle in a court of law”.

read comments (0)

 Insanity: or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder typically stemming from a form of mental illness.   In some views, what is insane by definitions is not necessarily a disorder of the mind, but may simply be a different way of being that is judged as unacceptable on social or cultural grounds. I’m implying that what is seen as insanity by other is not (by extension, that there is no mental illness). Every since legal and social consequences are attached to being declared insane (ranging from possibly having the freedom curtailed by involuntary commitment to escaping punishment by falsely convincing others of insanity. I read that on March 30,1981, John W. Hinckley, Jr., shot and wounded President Ronald Reagan and three other persons as the president was walking to his limousine after an appearance at a hotel in Washington, D.C. One of the other persons, Press Secretary James Brady, was gravely injured by a head wound. Many eyewitnesses and millions of other persons saw the shooting on television. After a seven-week trial, including three days of jury deliberations, Hinckley was acquitted of 13 crimes. On June 21, 1982, a “not guilty by reason of insanity” verdict was returned against the would-be presidential assassin. Hinckley was then committed to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital by presiding Judge Barrington D. Parker, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Hinckley presently resides. The acquittal of John Hinckley, Jr., and the jury’s verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity set loose a flood of public outcry and a volley of critical statements in the daily press. How could a person be found not guilty and escape punishment for an assassination attempt on the president of the United States seen in plain view by millions of persons on television? For most of the general public, it was puzzling and even baffling to understand a criminal justice system that was unable to immediately and effectively punish a person for a planned assassination attempt resulting in injury to a president and three other persons. In World War II developments in the insanity defense provides a detailed analysis. The focus is on the more recent evolution of insanity defense standards and on burdens of proof. In content and style, this is the most traditionally “legal” chapter in the book. The case law discussed has provided the basis of the judge’s instructions to the jury on the law of insanity. In other countries they examine the legal criteria and procedures surrounding the defense of insanity in several West and East European, African, Latin American, and Asian societies. John Q. La Fond’s essay, “Observations on the Insanity Defense and Involuntary Civil Commitment in Europe”, serves as the basis for much of the information we present on several of the current codes for European countries.

Inchoate offense: is a crime. Generally it refers to the act of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. A true inchoate offense occurs when the intended crime is not perpetrated since the doctrine of Merger prohibits both, except for conspiracy. Absent a specific law, an inchoate offense requires that the defendant have the specific intent to commit the underlying crime. For example, for a defendant to be guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation of murder, she must specifically intend to cause the death of a particular human being. It would not be enough for Defendant to ask another to kill the victim when she simply intended to scare the victim. (Note that specific intent can be inferred, and many people would infer the specific intent to kill the victim simply by Defendant asking another to do it). There can be various causes of failing the commission of the underlying crime, for example arrest prior to committing the crime, accident which prevents the crime, or even impossibility. For example, Defendant takes a gun that he believes is loaded, points it at victim, and with the intent to kill victim pulls the trigger. The gun is not loaded however, and victim runs away. In this case Defendant would be guilty of the inchoate crime of attempted murder even though it was actually impossible for Defendant to commit the underlying crime, here murder. Examples of inchoate offenses include comspiracy, solicitation and attempt, as well as some public health crimes. Solicitation is an inchoate crime that consist of a person inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime.

Accomplice: Is a person who actively participates  in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual crime that was committed. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout, a second gunman, or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even though in the absence of an underlying offence keeping a lookout, holding a gun, or driving a car would not be an offence.

read comments (0)

If you are caught with a gun,

 You can face harsh penalties in federal prison with no possibility of parole. And, if you have three or more prior violent felony of serious drug offense convictions, you face a minimum of 15 years in prison without parole. Other possible federal penalties under Project Safe Neighborhood include:

•        If you buy a gun for someone else and lie on the federal form about who the gun is for, you have committed a federal crime.
•        Using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime or crime of violence, the minimum sentence you can get is 5 years, with no parole. And, if you are convicted of another count of carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking or violent crime-even during the same trial-you will automatically receive another 25 years.
•        If you steal guns or have anything to do with guns that you know or have reasonable cause to believe were stolen; you can go to prison for up to 10 years
•        Possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone can get you a prison sentence of up to 5 years. If you give or sell a handgun (or ammunition used only in handguns) to someone under 18 and you knew or had reasonable cause to know that the juvenile intend to carry, possess, or discharge the handgun or otherwise use the handgun or ammunition during a violent crime, you can go to prison for 10 years.
•        Obliterating or altering the manufacturer’s serial number on a firearm-or even knowingly transporting or possessing such a firearm- is punishable by up to 5 years in prison
•        Possessing of transferring a machinegun manufactured on or after May 19, 1986 is punishable by up to 10 years in prison

Florida’s 10-20-life law has led to the imprisonment of many violent and armed felons. This report analyzes data on these criminals to provide information on the impact of Governor Bush’s 10-20-life public-safety policy. But with the state facing a $1-billion deficit next year the funding request might have stronger legs to stand on if the centers leaders could get into the governor’s budget.  My research paper is just a notification. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the law.        

read comments (0)