Quiz 12: Crimes Against Public Order and Morals
Case synopsis: This case reveals the implication of Matrix Program that implemented in the SF city.Here, matrix program had been implemented in 1993 based on the report of institution of Matrix Program.This program focused to improve the quality of offenses in the city and it includes sleeping or lodging in public parks, public inebriation and drinking, and street prostitution. This program also focused to protect the homeless persons by providing housing facilities.However, then after the Matrix Program made violation over certain ordinances that allegedly penalized homeless people for engage in life-sustaining activities. Therefore, plaintiffs Mr.BJ, Mr.TS, Mr.TH, and Mr.JT brought an action against Matrix Program for the certain ordinances.The court denied the injunction over the Matrix Program. 1) Major elements of the Matrix Program: The Matrix Program a comprehensive program executed by the Economic Planning and Development of SF city.This comprehensive program focused to provide highest quality of life in the city irrespective of the economic status and improve the quality of life offenses.This program includes set of elements.They are given below; • Public inebriation and drinking • Lodging and sleeping in public parks • Street sales of narcotics • Street prostitution • Providing housing facility for homeless people • Aggressive panhandling • Public urination and defecation 2) Reason to adopt Matrix Program by the SF city: Matrix Program has a particular intention for its execution.Before enforce this program, the crime rate was rigorous and uncontrollable with the prevailing system.Hence, a new system has to implement for improve the quality of life in the city by alleviating the crime rates.In order to the enforcement of Matrix Program, SF police department enforced more stringent criminal laws. Same time, it started restricting different activities in public such as public urination and defecation, street prostitution, and lodging and sleeping in public parks.Furthermore, it also included the program to provide housing for homeless people.That means Matrix Program enforced to improve quality of life of every citizen irrespective of their socioeconomic status.These are the reason to adopt Matrix program by the SF city. 3) Objection of plaintiffs behind the Matrix Program: There are many benefits can achieve by the implementation of Matrix Program.Especially, it secures human being from different kinds of crimes and provides safe and secure life in the city of SF. However, the problem mainly arises on the rehabilitation of homeless people, because the program stringently prohibits the activities of homeless people like sleeping or lodging in public parks, street prostitution, and street sales. Hence, after some extend the Matrix Program started violation of some ordinances that penalized homeless people for engaging life-sustainable activities.This was the objection of plaintiffs behind the Matrix Program. 4) Argument of an individual as an attorney of SF city over the injunction of Matrix Program: The implementation of Matrix Program has large benefits towards the society.Hence, it is an unavoidable program to uplift the quality of life in the SF city.The argument of plaintiffs is Matrix Program started violating some ordinances that penalized homeless people for engaging life-sustainable activities like lodging or sleeping in public parks. It is a major issue and the court has to examine the argument that rose by plaintiffs.In this situation, an individual as an attorney will order to organize a committee to conduct an inquiry based on the argument. Whereas, the court has to deny the injunction unless the committee finds discrepancy in the prevailing ordinance because, it is a vital program towards the society.Furthermore, it helps to improve the quality of life in the society.Therefore, this is the argument of an individual over the injunction of Matrix Program as an attorney of SF city. 5) Argument of an individual as an attorney to issue the injunction over Matrix Program: At the time of implementation, Matrix Program was a comprehensive program that focuses both common society as well as homeless people.Some ordinances specifically implemented to uplift the homeless people from their difficulties.Whereas, the authority failed to enforces this ordinances and started violating such ordinances. Furthermore, the violation of ordinances severely affect the life of homeless people, because the people who sleep in the parks and street selling started consider as a crime under this program.This is the clear violation of human rights. Therefore, the court has to issue injunction over the Matrix program to protect homeless people.These are the argument of an individual as an attorney of public to issue the injunction. 6) Terms included for the injunction of Matrix Program: In this case of Matrix Program, the terms of injunction are violation of human rights (from the side of public) and impact of Matrix Program towards the society (from the side of SF city).Violation of human rights is a serious issue and it can pressurize the court to issue the injunction. Likewise, the favorable impact of Matrix Program towards the society is a term to deny the injunction, because the issue of injunction may be disorder the favorable situation of the society to worse.Therefore, these are the term included for the injunction of Matrix Program.
Case synopsis: This case reveals the importance of CG anti-gang ordinance.In 1992, CG City Counsel enacted the anti-gang ordinance to control the gang-related homicide in the public.Violation of this ordinance leads to impose criminal offence and punishable up to the fine of $500, imprisonment up to six months, and requirement to perform 120 hours for community service. The violation of this ordinance is based on the four elements that specified by CG City Counsel.During the three years, 89,000 dispersal orders were executed and 42,000 people were arrested for the violation.With the concern of the city, the gang-related homicide dipped from 26 percent to 19 percent.Same time it suffer from certain limitations. 1) Four elements in the CG anti-gang ordinance: The conviction or violation of CG anti-gang ordinance is based on the four elements.A Police officer has to observe and execute his or her duties as per these elements of ordinance to charge the violation of CG anti-gang ordinance.They are given below; • A police officer has to understand that at least one person from criminal street gang member is present in a public place. • The person loitering through the places where the area that ordinance defined without any purpose. • Then, an officer has to make order to disperse all the members of particular area. • A person disobeys order from the police officer. 2) Argument that supports for the ordinance was vague: The enforcement of CG anti-gang ordinance creates several problems in the society.Especially, the freedom of an individual to loiter in the particular area for innocent purposes may be lead to a crime.It is the clear violation of liberty of an individual protected the Due Process Clause. Furthermore, the vagueness also happen once the ordinance is not clear because, may be the citizens did not know what conduct it prohibits.Likewise, this ordinance may be enforcing to apprehend an innocent person, because it fails to distinguish the criminal person from innocent.These are the argument that supports for the ordinance was vague. 3) Reasons for the disagreement from dissenting judges: The dissenting judges disagree with the CG anti-gang ordinance.disagreement derived from the liberty or freedom of citizen in the public.The judges find that the enforcement of ordinance may lead to violate the Due Process Clause.This ordinance also failed distinguishing innocent conduct leading to threatened harm. Furthermore, purpose of fair notice requirement and terms of dispersal of order also reasons for the disagreement because, if an officer disperse all the people from a place then they will gather some other place. It makes the ordinance inappropriate.Likewise, law does not permit legislature to catch possible offenders.However, the ordinance tries to catch maximum possible offenders from public.All these factors are the reasons for the disagreement from dissenting judges. 4) Knowledge of the public about the conduct specified in the ordinance: The CG anti-gang ordinance enforced to protect the people from gang-related homicides.At the same time, it faces several criticisms.Among, the knowledge of public about the conduct that specified in the ordinance is very important. Based on the intention of this ordinance, most of the decent law abiding citizens are supporting this ordinance, because they feel fear and they could not even walk through the streets where the gangs were dominated.In these particular localities, contribution of economic and social activities is declines.Therefore, most of the public are aware about this ordinance and its conducts. 5) Majority interest in community with the individual liberty: While consider the interest in community with the individual liberty, decent law abiding citizens struggle in the society to overcome their desperate situation.They reveal that only one or 2 percent people suffer problems from criminal gangs. However, ninety-eight percent of the people do not come out from home and them afraid to shop or engage in social activities.It means the majority of the community did not properly balance their interest as per the individual liberty. 6) Measures to balance the majority community's interest: Purely, the CG anti-gang ordinance enforced to balance the majority community's interest.However, somewhat it fails to reach its success.However, the strengthening of community policing around the particular areas will help law enforcement officers as well as the community to ease the gang related crime rates. In order to protect the people from harm, the police have to install technologically developed devices.It is sure that the movement of police with community can resolve this gang related crimes.Therefore, these are the measure to balance the majority community's interest.
Case synopsis: This case reveals the scope of CGI (Civil Gang Injunction) to alleviate the gang related crimes.Here, in the city of SP two local gangs are prevailing with the criminal history.RD is the prominent community festival of this city.At this festival time, the chances for gang confrontation are higher than any other time period. Hence, the city mayor imposes CGI with the authorization of city attorney and country attorney to prevent gang related criminal activities.However, the use of CGI is upheld by the Supreme Court.Further, SP city is seeking order to prohibit such gang leaders meanwhile of the festivals.Thereby, city mayor filed civil lawsuits to demonstrate proactive approach to prevent gangs from SP city. 1) Attitude of an individual to over the CGI: The CGI is a proactive method to prevent gang related crimes.The implementation of measure can provide more safety and security to the large society from several threatening harms.Hence, the injunction not only prevents the crime rates, it also provides the feel of confidence and enhances the social engagement of the law abiding community.In order to enforce an effective law and order, the CGI is an effective tool.Based on these factors an individual recommend the city of SP to go forward with the CGI, because it reduces the risks of the authority and also safeguard the interest of the society. 2) Things that an individual want the mayor, police chief, city attorney, and the public to know about CGI: While consider the CGI, it is not quite common in the law enforcement.Most of the places are free from this kind of injunction.Hence, each participant in the CGI has to understand about this injunction and its effectiveness.While consider the mayor of the city, he or she has to understand the nature of the situation and scope of CGI among the public. The police chief and city attorney have to examine the situation and make sure how it prevails among the particular situation.Furthermore, they must be properly informed by means of fair notice to the public about what and how it prohibits activities. From the side of public, they must aware about the CGI and what it prohibits among them.These are the things that an individual want mayor, police chief, city attorney, and the public to know about CGI.