6.1. Prescriptive and Enforcement Jurisdiction: Territorial and Extraterritorial Application

Public International law

© Ruwanthika Gunaratne and Public International Law at https://ruwanthikagunaratne.wordpress.com, 2008 – present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Ruwanthika Gunaratne and Public International Law with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Jurisdiction: Overview

Jurisdiction is the government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and entities within its territory. Jurisdiction is closely related to, and stems from, the principle of state sovereignty and sovereign equality and independence of states from non-interference in its internal affairs.

Jurisdiction covers

(1) the state legislature’s right to create, amend or repeal legislation: we called this prescriptive jurisdiction (legislative powers),

(2) the state’s right to enforce this legislation through, for example, the police and public prosecutors, by investigating a crime and arresting a suspect: we called this enforcement jurisdiction

View original post 736 more words


Origins of the police

Works in theory

The Five Points district of lower Manhattan, painted by George Catlin in 1827. New York’s first free Black settlement, it became a mixed-race slum, home to Blacks and Irish alike, and a focal point for the stormy collective life of the new working class. Cops were invented to gain control over neighborhoods and populations like this. The Five Points district of lower Manhattan, painted by George Catlin in 1827. New York’s first free Black settlement, Five Points was also a destination for Irish immigrants and a focal point for the stormy collective life of the new working class. Cops were invented to gain control over neighborhoods and populations like this.

In England and the United States, the police were invented within the space of just a few decades—roughly from 1825 to 1855.

The new institution was not a response to an increase in crime, and it really didn’t lead to new methods for dealing with crime. The most common way for authorities to solve a crime, before and since the invention of police, has been for someone to tell them who did it.

Besides, crime has to do with the acts of individuals, and the ruling elites who invented the police were responding to challenges posed by collective…

View original post 7,122 more words

U.S. taxes for Individuals

If you are a U.S. citizen or resident, whether you must file a return depends on three factors:

Your gross income,

Your filing status, and

Your age.

Gross income. This includes all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. It also includes income from sources outside the United States or from the sale of your main home (even if you can exclude all or part of it).

You were married, filing a separate return, and you lived with your spouse at any time during 2014; or

Half of your social security benefits plus your other gross income and any tax-exempt interest is more than $25,000 ($32,000 if married filing jointly).

Community income. If you are married and your permanent home is in a community property state, half of any income described by state law as community income may be considered yours. This affects your federal taxes, including whether you must file if you do not file a joint return with your spouse.

Filing status. Your filing status depends on whether you are single or married and on your family situation. Your filing status is determined on the last day of your tax year, which is December 31 for most taxpayers.

Age. If you are 65 or older at the end of the year, you generally can have a higher amount of gross income than other taxpayers before you must file.

You must file a final return for a decedent (a person who died) if both of the following are true.

  • You are the surviving spouse, executor, administrator, or legal representative
  • The decedent met the filing requirements at the date of death.

To determine whether you must file a return, include in your gross income any income you received abroad, including any income you can exclude under the foreign earned income exclusion.

Generally, a child is responsible for filing his or her own tax return and for paying any tax on the return. If a dependent child must file an income tax return but cannot file due to age or any other reason, then a parent, guardian, or other legally responsible person must file it for the child.

If a child’s only income is interest and dividends (including capital gain distributions and Alaska Permanent Fund dividends), the child was under age 19 at the end of 2014 or was a full-time student under age 24 at the end of 2014, and certain other conditions are met, a parent can elect to include the child’s income on the parent’s return.

If you are a resident alien for the entire year, you must file a tax return following the same rules that apply to U.S. citizens. Use the forms discussed in this publication.

If you are a nonresident alien, the rules and tax forms that apply to you are different from those that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens.

If you are a resident alien for part of the tax year and a nonresident alien for the rest of the year, you are a dual-status taxpayer. Different rules apply for each part of the year.

Even if you do not have to file, you should file a federal income tax return to get money back if any of the following conditions apply

  1. You had federal income tax withheld or made estimated tax payments.
  2. You qualify for the earned income credit.
  3. You qualify for the additional child tax credit.
  4. You qualify for the premium tax credit.
  5. You qualify for the American opportunity credit.
  6. You qualify for the credit for federal tax on fuels.
IF your filing status is… AND at the end of 2014 you
THEN file a return if
your gross income
was at least…**
single under 65 $10,150
65 or older $11,700
married filing jointly*** under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
65 or older (both spouses) $22,700
married filing separately any age $3,950
head of household under 65 $13,050
65 or older $14,600
qualifying widow(er) with dependent child under 65 $16,350
65 or older $17,550
* If you were born on January 1, 1950, you are considered to be age 65 at the end of 2014. (If your spouse died in 2014 or if you are preparing a return for someone who died in 2014
** Gross income means all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax, including any income from sources outside the United States or from the sale of your main home (even if you can exclude part or all of it). Do not include any social security benefits unless (a) you are married filing a separate return and you lived with your spouse at any time during 2014 or (b) one-half of your social security benefits plus your other gross income and any tax-exempt interest is more than $25,000 ($32,000 if married filing jointly). If (a) or (b) applies, see the instructions for Form 1040 or 1040A or Publication 915 to figure the taxable part of social security benefits you must include in gross income
*** If you did not live with your spouse at the end of 2014 (or on the date your spouse died) and your gross income was at least $3,950, you must file a return regardless of your age.

Law enforcement agencies’ jurisdiction

Agencies which have the ability to apply their powers in a restricted way are said to operate within a jurisdiction. Law enforcement agencies (LEAs) will always have some form of territorial or geographic restriction which they have to comply with. A certain agency might be able to apply its powers on the territory of the whole country, within a division of the country, or across a collection of countries, as Interpol does.
An agency that enforces the law with a wide range of powers but whose enforcement ability is restricted geographically to an area which is only part of a country, is referred to as local police or territorial police. Other LEAs have a jurisdiction defined by the type of laws they enforce or assist in enforcing. For example, Interpol does not work in the fields of political, military, religious, or racial matters.

LEA’s jurisdiction may be determined not only by the territorial principle but also by the complexity and seriousness of the non compliance with a law that the agency has to discover and pursue. Some countries determine the jurisdiction in these circumstances by means of policy. Another important factor in this aspect may be the resource availability and allocation between agencies. In many countries around the world differentiation of jurisdiction based on the seriousness and complexity of the non compliance either by law or by policy and consensus usually coexists.
LEA’s jurisdiction may typically be granted for more than one level of the country’s administrative division, for example at the division levels of state, province or territory level, and even at the sub division level, for a county, shire, or municipality or metropolitan area. In the United States typically each state and county has its own Law enforcement agencies.
By rule, agencies which operate on an international level tend to assist in law enforcement activities, rather than directly enforcing laws. They achieve their goals by facilitating the sharing of information necessary for law enforcement between agencies within the countries they operate in. That’s the reason why such agencies do not have executive powers.
Often a LEA’s jurisdiction will be geographically divided into smaller areas for administrative and logistical efficiency reasons. An operations area is often called a command or an office.
While the operations area of an Agency is sometimes referred to as a jurisdiction, any such area still has legal jurisdiction in all geographic areas where the Agency operates. However, there is an established rule by policy and consensus, that the operations area will not work in other geographical operations areas of the agency, different from its own.
There may be a case where one legal jurisdiction is covered by more than one agency. That may occur mainly for administrative and logistical efficiency or for policy and historical reasons. For example, the jurisdiction of English law is covered by a number of law enforcement agencies called constabularies, with each constabulary still having legal jurisdiction over the whole area of England and Wales. These constabularies, however, do not normally operate outside their areas if that is not explicitly stated or agreed to.
The primary difference between separate agencies and operational areas within one legal jurisdiction is the degree of flexibility to move resources between agencies and to move them within an agency. When multiple agencies cover one legal jurisdiction, each agency still typically organises itself into operations areas.
In the United States within a state’s legal jurisdiction, county and city police agencies do not have full legal jurisdictional flexibility and this has led to mergers of adjacent police agencies.
The responsibilities of a federal law enforcement agency vary from country to country. Federal agency’s responsibilities are typically countering fraud against the federation, immigration and border control of people and goods, investigating currency counterfeiting, policing of airports, protection of designated national infrastructure, and national security.An agency’s jurisdiction usually also includes the governing bodies it supports, and the LEA itself. As a result in the United States there are numerous federal agencies of law enforcement – Federal, Tribal, State, County, City, Town, Village, special Jurisdictions and others.

Main aspects of the Criminal intent

Common law bases its understanding on the essence of the elements of crime on the single Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, meaning that “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”. Therefore to the Common law definition of the crime it is an inherent prerequisite that there must be an actus reus, or “guilty act”, accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged. The law does not attach criminal liability to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception to this rule applies to strict liability crimes. Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether he had committed the crime and whether he intended to commit the crime. With the passing of time and the evolution of Criminal law, many modern penal codes have created levels of mens rea called modes of culpability, which depend on the surrounding elements of the crime.
Criminal intent is the first of all other types of mens rea (the term of art common law usually uses to describe the mental fault of the defendant), it is the most serious one and the one that is punished most severely by the law. A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused’s mind.
One popular definition of the concept of Criminal intent states that it is “the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence.” Criminal intent refers to the state of mind accompanying a forbidden by the law act. It is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime. It is the outline of the mental pattern which is necessary to do the crime. Sometimes, not very correctly, the term criminal intent is used in the sense of mens rea – the mental element requisite for guilt of the offense charged.
There are different types of criminal intent and the distinction between them is important not only theoretically, but for practical reasons as well. For example there often exists a distinction between “basic intent” and “specific intent.”
“Specific intent” is a less frequently invoked term of art and often applies to cases in which the accused intends to commit a crime but has not yet done so. It may be used to justify preventive detentions made by legal enforcement agencies and officers to people committing acts associated with terrorism, treason or sabotage.
Criminal intent may be further categorized as either “direct” or “oblique.” Defined as a desire to commit a specific act in the expectation that it will result in a specific outcome or result. This is the way the prosecution may use to prove premeditation.
By contrast, “oblique” intent may be used to establish guilt in cases that involve unintended consequences. An individual who undertakes a specific action with the knowledge that it may cause certain consequences may be estimated to have oblique intent.
There exists a third division between the types of intent, namely unconditional and conditional intent. Unconditional intent is observed when a person expects the results and the consequences of their actions. On the other hand conditional intent exists when a person expects the result but only because the conditions diverted the person from his or her unconditional intent.

What is a J.D. degree?

There is a great chance that if you are not USA or Canada based, you would not know what the title J.D. stands for, even if you are a legal professional. So I think it would be useful to get acquainted to its proper meaning.
The J.D. is the highest education available in the legal profession in the United States and is considered a professional degree. Actually the abbreviation J.D. stands for Juris Doctor, which is a professional doctorate and first professional graduate degree in law. The degree is earned by completing law school in the United States, Canada, Australia, and other common law countries.The J.D. will prepare the student to take the state bar exam allowing them to practice law in their country or state. In the USA the Juris Doctorate degree is obtained by going to a law school that has been approved by the American Bar Association.
However, becoming a J.D. is a long process. The most common path followed by students in the USA is first receiving an undergraduate degree in law or legal science, then pursuing a Juris Doctorate degree. The undergraduate degree doesn’t have to be related to the law, at least not always. Any undergraduate degree that prepares the student with an education that bears on the practice of law would do. Once a student has completed their undergraduate degree, they would have to take the LSAT test in order to apply to law school. Once they have passed the LSAT they would be able to go on to earn their Juris Doctorate. The Juris Doctorate program varies at each school as to the length and courses; but in general there are standard guidelines followed by all reputable Law schools. The average time to take the degree is three years of full-time coursework. Once the Juris Doctorate is complete, the American law student is ready to sit for their state bar exam and receive their license to practice law.

Originating from the 19th century Harvard movement for the scientific study of law, J.D. is a law degree that in most common law jurisdictions is the primary professional preparation for state approved lawyers and legal practitioners. Legal education is rooted in the history and structure of the legal system of the jurisdiction where the education is given, therefore law degrees are vastly different from country to country and state to state, making comparisons among degrees a hard, if not an impossible, task.
Some of the courses a student can expect to take in a J.D. program are:
• Civil Procedures
• Constitutional Laws
• Contract Law
• Torts
• Courtroom Procedures
• Criminal Law
• Property and Real Estate Law
• Civil Law
• Public Law
• International Law
• Business Law
As a professional doctorate, the Juris Doctor is a degree that prepares the recipient to enter the law profession. While the J.D. is the sole degree necessary to become a professor of law or to obtain a license to practice law, it is generally upheld to not be a “research degree”. Research degrees in the study of law include the Master of Laws (LL.M.), which ordinarily requires the J.D. or LL.B., and the Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.).
Recently the American Bar Association has issued a statement, advising law schools that the J.D. should be considered equivalent to the Ph.D. for educational employment purposes. That is the reason why most law professors in the USA only have a J.D. degree.