#criminlogy

[s1mpl3legal]

Cults and Chatter

Name of the Case:

People of the State of California v. Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten

Parties to the Case:

Petitioner: People of the State of California Respondent: Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, Leslie Van Houten, and other Manson Family members

Nature of the Case:

Criminal case involving charges of conspiracy to commit murder, multiple counts of murder, and criminal association.

Background:

The Manson Family, a cult-like group led by Charles Manson in the late 1960s, carried out a series of brutal murders in California. Manson directed his followers to commit these murders to incite "Helter Skelter," a term he borrowed from a Beatles song and envisioned as a race war. The most infamous killings were the murders of actress Sharon Tate and six others over two nights in August 1969.

Facts of the Case:

August 8-9, 1969: Manson Family members killed actress Sharon Tate (who was eight months pregnant) and four others at her Beverly Hills residence.

August 10, 1969: The group murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in their Los Angeles home.

Manson did not physically participate in the murders but orchestrated them, influencing his followers through manipulation and psychological control.

The killings were carried out with extreme brutality, and phrases written in the victims' blood were left at the scenes.

Issues Raised:

Was Charles Manson legally culpable for the murders he ordered but did not physically commit?

Could the prosecution prove conspiracy and shared intent among all the defendants?

Did the defendants receive a fair trial given the intense media scrutiny?

Provisions:

California Penal Code:

Section 187: Murder.

Section 182: Conspiracy to commit a crime.

Contentions of Counsels:

Prosecution:

Argued that Manson masterminded the murders, using his influence over the Family members to carry them out.

Presented evidence of Manson’s apocalyptic ideology and testimony from former Family members, including Linda Kasabian, who turned state witness.

Defense:

Denied Manson’s direct involvement and questioned the reliability of prosecution witnesses.

Claimed that the defendants were acting independently or under duress.

Judgment:

Trial Court (1971):

Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten were found guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

All were sentenced to death.

Post-Trial Developments:

Following the California Supreme Court's abolition of the death penalty in 1972, their sentences were commuted to life imprisonment.

Case Analysis:

Command Responsibility: Manson’s conviction despite not directly committing the murders highlighted the legal principle of conspiratorial liability.

Media Influence: The trial was one of the most publicized in history, raising questions about the impact of media on jury impartiality.

Psychological Manipulation: The case illustrated the devastating effects of psychological control and cult-like environments.

Conclusion:

The Manson Family murders shocked the world, symbolizing the darker side of the counterculture era. The case remains a chilling study of manipulation, group psychology, and criminal justice. Manson died in prison in 2017, and most of his followers remain incarcerated.

[fiyerotigelaarr]

How was your day bestu?

It's going okay. Had Criminlogy class, which seems interesting, + the professor is hot! Now I'm getting ready for my Human Rights class. How was your day?

[perfectlullabies]

anyways, i’ve come to conclusion that i should challenge myself so i’m applying for a second degree at university. hopefully i’ll be studying both psychology (which i’ve already been studying since october) and criminology starting this fall!!!!!!!!!

[trentaafcsblog]

I’m not sure what criminlogy and sociology actually involves/ what they look for and this might be basic info I’m giving you but first paragraph should always be how passionate you are about the subject, show them you know what your getting yourself into and you’ve researched the course then in next paragraphs target exactly what they’re looking for in a student and show them how you can do these things/got these qualities, hope that helps if you need any help you can always send me a message x

Thank you so much my darling, you’re a star 🥰 x

[myromancebooksworld]

This my July wrap up.  I read 27 books last month mostly because of #thebookjunkietrials.

Like you can see I almost reach my goal that I fixed for this year (read 200 books like last year) … but apparently I will for sure read more than that until the end of the year … which just the though of that drives me crazy!  Me who never read more than like what 10 books or less in 30 years or so, then read 200 books in one year last year while this year I can not only read more than 20 books in a month but I can also read more than 200 books in a year … MINDBLOWING for sure!!! I’m proud of me!

Last month I also put another personal challenge on me for my next monthly TBR: I will read each month at least 2 thrillers.

Since I’m a little girl I was always attracted by the thriller world.  I always watched TV thrillers series from “Starsky & Hutch” to “Monk” (to name a few).  I even wanted to work in this world first as detective (like all those characters of course) and then when I started to study in a law school, I was very excited to study criminlogy.  Unfortunately university was never my forte and I ended up being graduated in P.R. but the passion is still there … just like my passion for psychology who was also a subject that I wanted to study at the university … I also like to whatch documentary about criminal cases to understand the mind of those monsters.

That is why I thought that my “fear” for reading a thriller book was silly of me since it’s a world that intrigued me since I’m a little girl … and so far so good!  I loved the 2 thrillers that I read in July, I already planned the 2 thrillers for this month (August) and bought some new ones!

Anyway let’s back to my July wrap up:

- For the #bookjunkietrials, I not only did the first 5 challenges for my team (#Scribes) but also read a book for the challenges of each team:

1. Dwarf Mount: “Fumbled Hearts” by Meagan Brandy: 4 stars

2. Apothecary Towers: “Bad Saint” by Monica James: 4 stars

3. The Great Library: “Finley” by Ella Frank: 4 stars (more a 3.5)

4. The Drowning Deep: “A Thousand Pieces Of You” by Claudia Gray: 4 stars

5. The Bookie Grail: “Stardust” by Neil Gaiman: 3 stars

6. Orc Grove “Captive In The Dark” by C.J. Roberts: 4 stars

7. Ol’ Pirate Cove: “Bane” by L.J. Shen: 4.5 stars

8. Glimmer: “One Little Lie” by Whitney Barbetti: 3.5 stars

9. Draconic Isle: “Obsidian” by Kimberly Loth: 3 stars

10. The Eleven Guard: “Off Base” by Annabeth Albert: 4 stars

11. On The Hallow Isle: “Scavengers” by Yolanda Olson: 4 stars

12. Empty Barrel Inn: “The Bourbon Kings” by J.R. Ward: 4 stars

13. Giant Squid: “Requiem & Reverie” by Keri Lake : 5 stars (more a 4.5)

14. Crimson Peaks: “Devil’s Kiss” by Ella Frank: 5 stars

15. Queendom Stone: “Cheeky Royal” by Nana Malone: 4 stars

16. The Forgotten Forests: “#Player” by Cambria Hebert: 4 stars

17. The Weeping Falls: “Until You” by Penelope Douglas”: 5 stars

In July I also read for my last library and last #romanceopoly challenge: “Enthralled” by Giana Darling.  I was not a huge fan of her book “Lessons In Corruption” but I gave another try with “Enthralled” … and I fell in love with it!  I gave it 5 stars and I’m so impatient to read the second book!

I also read those books:

- “Sinfully Mine” by Nicky James: 4 stars Yes it’s a very tabboo romance but the author make a really good job to explain how and why these 2 young men, these 2 brothers started to have more deep feelings toward each others.  This romance is much more complex than it seems to be but I can understand that for some us, this romance is waaaaayyy more than tabboo and forbidden ...

- “Filty Rich Boys” by C.M. Stunich: 4 stars

- “Two Can Keep A Secret” by Karen McManus: 4 stars

- “Boy Shattered” by Eli Easton: 4 stars

- “Say You’re Sorry” by Melinda Leigh: 4 stars

- “Cruel Intentions” by Siobhan Davis: 4 stars

- “Bad, Bad Blue Blood” by C.M. Stunich: 3.5 stars

- “#Selfie” by Cambria Hebert: 5 stars

- “Breaking Beth” by Jennifer Bene: 3 stars

[sadqiirl]

RANDOM  MUN FACTS  YOU SURELY WANT TO KNOW. repost, not reblog !

name: Marisa ( yes one ‘S’ surprise. ) nickname(s): Ris, Risa, Rissy. height: ‘5,5 nationality: Americaa fuck yeaah favourite fruit: Apples favourite season: Winter. favourite scents: vanilla, cinnamon, sugar cookies biitch..  favourite colour(s): pink favourite animals: dogs, red pandas, fat cats. tea, coffee, hot cocoa: coffee and hot cocoa biitch. when my blog was created: uhh id say a year ago?? # of followers: 147 random fact: I stutter like a lil bitch. favourite food: chicken. favourite t.v. show: AHHH ahs def when it isn’t trash.. fdtd, uhhh bates motel yes so many shows bye. favourite movie: Split ( i’ve seen it twice fuuck ), A star is born. favourite vine: HI WELCOME TO CHILIS sexuality: bisexual pronouns: she/her  favourite book  fuck. this one big I read had me shook i forgot the fucking name buut.  it’s silence ok its really good. favourite video game(s):  idk favourite subject: english, criminlogy.

guys or girls: both.. but I do prefer women?? last time I cried: uhh idk. what I should be doing: replies, school.. favourite fandoms: .. eHH ahs?? theyre funny as fuck.

TAGGED BY: nobody. 

TAGGING: @empathists @ameriicangraffiti @fiirebreathcr 

[s1mpl3legal]

Conversations w/ a killer: Ted Bundy

Name of the Case:

State of Florida v. Theodore Robert Bundy

Parties to the Case:

Petitioner: State of Florida Respondent: Theodore Robert Bundy

Nature of the Case:

Criminal case involving multiple charges of murder, kidnapping, and assault.

Background:

Ted Bundy was an American serial killer who confessed to murdering 30 young women across several U.S. states during the 1970s. Known for his charisma and intelligence, Bundy lured his victims into situations where he could overpower them. His crimes were marked by extreme violence, and he often revisited the bodies of his victims.

Bundy’s capture and subsequent trials became some of the most publicized criminal cases in history, partly due to his dramatic courtroom behavior and decision to represent himself in court.

Facts of the Case:

Bundy was first arrested in 1975 for attempted kidnapping in Utah, which led to his connection to other crimes.

After escaping custody twice, he committed further murders in Florida, including the brutal attacks at the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University in 1978.

Bundy was charged with multiple murders, including those of Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman, and the abduction and murder of 12-year-old Kimberly Leach.

Issues Raised:

Was Bundy guilty of the murders and assaults attributed to him?

Did Bundy receive a fair trial despite his decision to represent himself?

Did the evidence meet the burden of proof required for the death penalty?

Provisions:

Florida Criminal Code:

First-degree murder.

Kidnapping.

Sexual assault.

Legal Principles Considered:

Due process under the Sixth Amendment.

Criteria for imposing the death penalty under U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

Contentions of Counsels:

Prosecution:

Presented forensic evidence, including bite marks on one of the victims that matched Bundy’s dental impressions.

Emphasized eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence linking Bundy to the crime scenes.

Defense (Represented by Bundy):

Bundy attempted to discredit the prosecution’s evidence and argued procedural errors.

Claimed his innocence, asserting that the evidence was circumstantial and insufficient for conviction.

Judgment:

Trial Court (1979):

Bundy was convicted of the murders of Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman and sentenced to death.

Subsequent Trial (1980):

Bundy was convicted of the abduction and murder of Kimberly Leach and sentenced to death again.

Appeals and Execution:

Bundy’s appeals were denied, and he was executed in the electric chair at Florida State Prison on January 24, 1989.

Case Analysis:

Forensic Evidence: The bite mark evidence was pivotal in securing Bundy’s conviction, highlighting the role of forensic science in criminal investigations.

Self-Representation: Bundy’s decision to represent himself underscored the risks of allowing a defendant to self-represent in high-stakes cases, as his lack of legal expertise likely hurt his defense.

Media and Public Attention: The case became a spectacle, raising questions about media influence on the judicial process.

Conclusion:

The Ted Bundy case is one of the most infamous in American criminal history. It demonstrated the importance of meticulous investigation, the evolution of forensic science, and the challenges of high-profile trials. Bundy’s execution marked the end of a case that left a lasting impact on the criminal justice system and public consciousness.

[s1mpl3legal]

Killer clown

Case Analysis of John Wayne Gacy

Name of the Case:

People of the State of Illinois v. John Wayne Gacy

Parties to the Case:

Petitioner: People of the State of Illinois Respondent: John Wayne Gacy

Nature of the Case:

Criminal case involving multiple counts of murder, sexual assault, and concealment of dead bodies.

Background:

John Wayne Gacy, an American serial killer and sex offender, was convicted of murdering at least 33 young men and boys between 1972 and 1978. Known as the "Killer Clown" due to his public persona as a children's entertainer, Gacy lured his victims to his home, where he assaulted, tortured, and murdered them. Most of the victims were buried in the crawl space of his home in Chicago, Illinois.

Facts of the Case:

Gacy’s crimes came to light following the disappearance of Robert Piest, a 15-year-old boy last seen with Gacy in December 1978.

Police discovered human remains buried in the crawl space of Gacy’s home during a search warrant.

Gacy confessed to killing over 30 victims, most of whom were young men and boys he lured with promises of work or other opportunities.

He was charged with 33 counts of murder, making it one of the worst serial murder cases in U.S. history.

Issues Raised:

Was Gacy mentally competent to stand trial?

Did Gacy’s actions meet the criteria for the death penalty under Illinois law?

Could Gacy’s defense of insanity be justified based on his psychological evaluations?

Provisions:

Illinois Criminal Code:

Murder charges.

Aggravated sexual assault.

Death penalty eligibility.

Legal Principles Considered:

The M'Naghten Rule for insanity defense.

Capital punishment laws in Illinois.

Contentions of Counsels:

Prosecution:

Presented overwhelming evidence, including confessions, the recovery of bodies, and testimony from survivors of Gacy’s attacks.

Emphasized the premeditated and heinous nature of Gacy’s crimes to argue for the death penalty.

Defense:

Claimed Gacy was not guilty by reason of insanity, citing psychological evaluations that indicated mental health issues.

Argued that Gacy’s actions were the result of mental illness, not criminal intent.

Judgment:

Trial Court (1980):

Gacy was found guilty of all 33 murders after a five-week trial.

He was sentenced to death for 12 counts of murder and life imprisonment for the other counts.

Appeals:

Gacy’s appeals were denied at every level, and his death sentence was upheld.

Execution (1994):

Gacy was executed by lethal injection at the Stateville Correctional Center in Illinois.

Case Analysis:

Competency and Insanity Defense: Gacy’s defense hinged on claims of insanity, but the prosecution successfully demonstrated that he was aware of the criminality of his actions, as evidenced by his efforts to hide the bodies.

Impact on Victims’ Families: The case highlighted the immense suffering of the victims’ families and the community.

Judicial Efficiency: The case is noted for its thorough investigation and successful prosecution despite its complexity.

Conclusion:

John Wayne Gacy’s case stands as a grim reminder of the devastating impact of serial murders. It also underscores the importance of due process and the role of forensic evidence in securing justice. Gacy’s execution brought closure to many, though the scars of his crimes remain.

[s1mpl3legal]

Noida double murders

Name of the Case:

Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Parties to the Case:

Petitioner: Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar (Parents of Aarushi Talwar) Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh

Nature of the Case:

Criminal case involving the double murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj Banjade (the family’s domestic worker).

Background:

The Aarushi Talwar case involves the mysterious double murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and 45-year-old Hemraj on May 15-16, 2008, in Noida, India. The case garnered national and international attention due to its sensational nature, alleged botched investigations, and the involvement of Aarushi’s parents as prime suspects.

Facts of the Case:

Aarushi Talwar was found dead in her bedroom on May 16, 2008. Initially, Hemraj was suspected but was later found murdered on the terrace of the same house.

The investigation saw multiple agencies, including the Noida police and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), handle the case.

The Noida police initially suspected an honor killing by Aarushi's parents, alleging a possible relationship between Aarushi and Hemraj.

The case involved inconsistent evidence, speculative theories, and a divided public opinion.

Issues Raised:

Were Aarushi’s parents responsible for the double murders?

Did the investigative agencies handle the case properly?

Was there sufficient evidence to convict the Talwars?

Provisions:

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 302: Murder.

Section 201: Causing the disappearance of evidence.

Section 34: Common intention.

Contentions of Counsels:

Prosecution:

Argued that the Talwars were the only individuals present in the house during the murders.

Highlighted inconsistencies in the Talwars' statements and circumstantial evidence pointing to their involvement.

Defense:

Emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking the Talwars to the crime.

Pointed out procedural lapses and alternative suspects ignored by the investigation.

Judgment:

Trial Court (2013): The Talwars were convicted of both murders and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Allahabad High Court (2017): Overturned the trial court’s verdict, acquitting the Talwars due to lack of evidence and significant doubts in the prosecution's case.

Case Analysis:

Investigation Lapses: The initial handling of the crime scene by the Noida police compromised crucial evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence: The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, which lacked conclusiveness.

Public and Media Influence: Sensational media coverage shaped public perception, often portraying the Talwars as guilty before the trial concluded.

Judicial Observations: The Allahabad High Court criticized the trial court for relying on conjectures and insufficient evidence to convict the Talwars.

Conclusion:

The Aarushi Talwar case remains one of India’s most controversial and unresolved criminal cases. It highlighted systemic issues in law enforcement, investigative procedures, and media ethics. While the Talwars were acquitted, the case left unanswered questions about the true perpetrators of the double murder.

[s1mpl3legal]

Unibomber

Name of the Case: United States v. Theodore John Kaczynski

Parties to the Case: Petitioner: United States of America Respondent: Theodore John Kaczynski

Nature of the Case: Criminal case involving domestic terrorism, use of explosives, and murder.

Background:

Theodore John Kaczynski, known as the "Unabomber," was a mathematician turned domestic terrorist. Between 1978 and 1995, he carried out a nationwide bombing campaign, targeting individuals he believed were advancing technology and destroying the environment. His actions resulted in three deaths and numerous injuries.

Kaczynski was apprehended in 1996 following a massive manhunt, aided by the publication of his manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future," which his brother recognized and reported to the authorities.

Facts of the Case:

From 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski mailed or hand-delivered 16 explosive devices to various targets, including universities, airlines, and individuals.

His bombs killed three people and injured 23 others.

In 1995, Kaczynski demanded that his manifesto be published, promising to halt his attacks if complied with.

His brother, David Kaczynski, recognized the language of the manifesto and alerted the FBI, leading to Kaczynski's arrest in a remote cabin in Montana.

Issues Raised:

Was Theodore Kaczynski competent to stand trial?

Could Kaczynski’s actions be justified or mitigated by claims of mental illness?

Should the court accept a plea bargain instead of pursuing the death penalty?

Provisions:

Federal Laws Violated:

18 U.S.C. § 844(i): Use of explosives to commit murder.

18 U.S.C. § 2332a: Use of weapons of mass destruction.

Other provisions related to transportation of explosives and mail bombs.

Legal Principles Considered:

Competency to stand trial under the Dusky v. United States standard.

Sentencing guidelines for domestic terrorism.

Contentions of Counsel:

Prosecution:

Argued for the gravity of Kaczynski’s crimes and the calculated nature of his actions.

Emphasized the need for a harsh sentence to deter domestic terrorism.

Defense:

Claimed Kaczynski was mentally ill, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

Advocated for a life sentence instead of the death penalty, citing his mental state.

Judgment:

Kaczynski accepted a plea bargain in 1998, pleading guilty to all charges to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Case Analysis:

Competency: Kaczynski’s mental state was a key issue, but he was found competent to stand trial. His refusal to pursue an insanity defense highlighted his insistence on controlling his narrative.

Impact of the Manifesto: The publication of "Industrial Society and Its Future" played a crucial role in his capture and highlighted the philosophical underpinnings of his actions.

Sentencing: The life sentence reflected a balance between justice for the victims and acknowledgment of Kaczynski’s mental health issues.

Conclusion:

The Unabomber case underscored the challenges in dealing with ideologically driven domestic terrorism. While Kaczynski's manifesto raised broader societal issues, his violent methods overshadowed any legitimate discourse. The case remains a pivotal example of effective law enforcement and judicial handling of domestic terrorism.