Law for Business 12th Edition By A. James Barnes - Test Bank

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

True    False

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

TRUE

FALSE

TRUE

FALSE

TRUE

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

TRUE

Felonies are serious offenses such as murder, rape, and arson that are generally punishable by confinement in a penitentiary for substantial periods of time. Conviction of a felony may, in some cases, result in disenfranchisement (loss of the right to vote).

In order for a person to be convicted of criminal behavior, the state must (1) demonstrate a prior statutory prohibition of the act, (2) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed every element of the criminal offense prohibited by the statute, and (3) prove that the defendant had the capacity to form a criminal intent.

Mens rea, or criminal intent, is an element of most serious crimes. The basic idea behind requiring intent is that the criminal law generally seeks to punish conscious wrongdoers.

According to the given scenario, the court will most likely hold Alex incapable of forming intent and punish him for second-degree murder. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a complete defense to criminal liability. It can, in some cases, diminish the extent of a defendant’s liability if it prevents the formation of a specific criminal intent. For example, many first-degree murder statutes require proof of premeditation, a conscious decision to kill. A highly intoxicated defendant may not be capable of premeditation and may therefore be convicted of only second-degree murder, which does not generally require premeditation.

In common law, children under the age of 7 were incapable of forming a criminal intent, children between the ages of 7 and 14 were presumed incapable, and children between the ages of 14 and 21 were presumed capable. This is the concept of infancy. The focus of these laws is rehabilitation rather than capacity, and they provide for special juvenile court systems and separate detention facilities.

Insanity on the part of a criminal defendant can affect a criminal trial in three ways. If the accused is incapable of assisting in the defense of the case, trial may be delayed until the accused regains sanity. An accused who becomes insane after trial but before sentencing is not sentenced until sanity has been regained. Insanity at the time the criminal act was committed absolves the defendant of criminal liability.

Insanity on the part of a criminal defendant can affect a criminal trial in three ways. If the accused is incapable of assisting in the defense of the case, trial may be delayed until the accused regains sanity. An accused who becomes insane after trial but before sentencing is not sentenced until sanity has been regained. Insanity at the time the criminal act was committed absolves the defendant of criminal liability.

The safeguards of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are designed to protect individuals from arbitrary and unreasonable governmental intrusion on their right to privacy. In determining whether a governmental action has unconstitutionally infringed on an individual’s right, the court must balance the governmental need to do the action against the intrusion on the individual’s rights.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is designed to protect individuals from arbitrary and unreasonable governmental intrusion on their right to privacy. For example, a warrant for a search or arrest cannot be issued without probable cause.

One of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment is the exclusionary rule. Under this rule, illegally gained evidence (evidence resulting from “unreasonable searches and seizures” prohibited by the Fourth Amendment) cannot be used in criminal prosecutions.

One of the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is prohibition against double jeopardy. Acquitted defendants cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Part of the Miranda warning says that persons charged with crimes have a right to be represented by effective counsel if imprisonment can result from conviction.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects criminal defendants against excessive bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (U.S.A. PATRIOT Act) allows law enforcement to use increased surveillance techniques, including the ability to conduct covert searches, obtain sensitive personal records, and track e-mail and Internet usage with minimal judicial and congressional oversight. Some critics of the law worry that the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act compromises the public’s Fourth Amendment rights. While the safeguarding of the public against terrorism is important, they contend that the law tips the balance too heavily in the government’s favor.

White-collar crime is the term used to describe various nonviolent criminal offenses committed by businesspersons and organizations. The focus of this trend is on business-related acts that primarily harm people outside the corporation. Such crime costs the public billions of dollars a year.

Today, corporate officials and agents may be held liable for crimes that they personally commit, for crimes they aid or abet, and for crimes they fail to prevent by neglecting to control the misconduct of those subject to their control. The last category of liability is sometimes known as the responsible corporate officer doctrine.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are designed to establish consistent sentences for federal crimes. In order to arrive at the sentence, judges are supposed to use a formula based on issues such as the seriousness of the crime, the defendant’s criminal record, and the circumstances of the crime.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 includes civil, criminal, and accounting reforms that drastically expand the accountability demanded of corporate officers and directors. Sarbanes-Oxley requires executives to pay close attention to the “quality of their companies’ financial reporting” and requires them to take steps to discover deficiencies in reporting systems and make necessary changes.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 includes civil, criminal, and accounting reforms that drastically expand the accountability demanded of corporate officers and directors. Under the law, procedures for whistleblowing, including anonymous reporting, must be established, and employees who “blow the whistle” on their employers for fraud are offered legal protection.

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, chief executive officers (CEOs) and chief financial officers (CFOs) must reimburse the company for any bonuses or other incentive compensation if any financial reporting is misleading due to misconduct, even if the misconduct was not attributable to the CEO or CFO.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was passed by Congress as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and, as the name suggests, was designed to stop the entry of organized crime into legitimate business enterprises. RICO prohibits (1) using income derived from “a pattern of racketeering activity” to acquire an interest in an enterprise, (2) acquiring or maintaining an interest in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, (3) conducting or participating in the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, or (4) conspiring to do the preceding.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was passed by Congress as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and, as the name suggests, was designed to stop the entry of organized crime into legitimate business enterprises. RICO prohibits racketeering activity, which includes the commission of any of over 30 federal or state crimes that include bribery; mail, wire, and securities fraud; and extortion.

Companies also face civil liability under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The government can seek civil penalties, and individuals injured by RICO violations can recover treble damages (three times their actual loss) plus attorneys’ fees.

In 2000, the United States ratified the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC). The IACAC was initiated by the Organization for American States (OAS) and criminalizes transnational bribery in the Western Hemisphere. The Convention requires that all 35 participating nations make it a crime to bribe foreign officials, designate appropriate punishments for violations, and agree to extradite those charged with bribery.

Both federal and state laws spell out the specifics of computer crime. It is a crime to access or use a computer without authorization. It also is a crime for people to access the services of commercial service providers without paying their fees.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) broadly imposes privacy obligations on those who process and handle electronic communications, as well as on those who intercept such messages. The ECPA contains two major provisions: (1) its Wiretap Act protects against unauthorized interception of electronic communications and (2) its Stored Communication Act protects against unauthorized access and disclosure of electronic communication while it is in electronic storage.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) civilly and criminally prohibits certain access to computers. Specifically, it bars a person without authorization from knowingly transmitting a program, information, code, or command with the intent of causing damage to a computer that is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications. Other provisions in the statute prohibit interference with computers used by, or for the benefit of, the government or financial institutions.

Enacted in response to the events of September 11, 2001, the Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002 (CSEA) and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (U.S.A. PATRIOT Act) make it easier for the government to collect personal electronic information and substantially stiffen the penalties for computer criminals. The CSEA reduces the amount of privacy in stored communication by allowing an Internet service provider (ISP) to disclose private information to a government agent, not just law enforcement officials, if the ISP has a “good faith” belief that the information concerns a serious crime.

The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM) took effect on January 1, 2004, and attempts to address the glut of “junk e-mail” commonly known as “spam.” The statute requires that unsolicited commercial e-mail messages be labeled and include opt-out instructions and the senders’ physical address.

The global nature of computer systems has led to an international effort to fight computer-related crime. Drafted under U.S. influence, the Council of Europe’s “Convention on Cybercrime” aims to harmonize computer crime laws around the world by obliging participating countries to outlaw computer intrusion, child pornography, commercial copyright infringement, and online fraud.

Crimes are public wrongs—acts prohibited by the state or federal government. Criminal prosecutions are brought by the prosecutor in the name of the government. Those who are convicted of committing criminal acts are subject to punishment established by the state or federal government in the form of fines, imprisonment, or execution.
Crimes are usually classed as felonies or misdemeanors, depending on the seriousness of the offense. Felonies are serious offenses such as murder, rape, and arson that are generally punishable by confinement in a penitentiary for substantial periods of time. Conviction of a felony may, in some cases, also result in disenfranchisement (loss of the right to vote) and bar a person from practicing certain professions such as law or medicine. Misdemeanors are lesser crimes such as traffic offenses or disorderly conduct that are punishable by fines or confinement in a city or county jail. Those convicted of crimes must also bear the stigma or social condemnation that accompanies a criminal conviction.

In order for a person to be convicted of criminal behavior, the state must: (1) demonstrate a prior statutory prohibition of the act, (2) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed every element of the criminal offense prohibited by the statute, and (3) prove that the defendant had the capacity to form a criminal intent.

In addition to the presumption of innocence, the legal system of the United States has several other built-in safeguards to protect the accused. These safeguards are designed to prevent innocent people from being convicted of crimes they did not commit. They also represent an ideal of the proper role of government in a democracy. A few of these safeguards include the Fourth Amendment’s provision to protect individuals from arbitrary and unreasonable governmental intrusion on their right to privacy and the Fifth Amendment’s provision against compulsory self-incrimination and double jeopardy.

Two federal laws that address computer privacy in the United States are the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The ECPA broadly imposes privacy obligations on those who process and handle electronic communications, as well as on those who intercept such messages. It contains two major provisions: (1) its Wiretap Act protects against unauthorized interception of electronic communications and (2) its Stored Communication Act protects against unauthorized access and disclosure of electronic communication while it is in electronic storage. The CFAA civilly and criminally prohibits certain access to computers. Specifically, it bars a person without authorization from knowingly transmitting a program, information, code, or command with the intent of causing damage to a computer that is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communications. Other provisions in the statute prohibit interference with computers used by, or for the benefit of, the government or financial institutions. In general, the CFAA seeks to protect the privacy of information and communications as well as the national security of the United States. Simultaneously, it prohibits acts of sabotage or vandalism to protected computers or networks.

Drafted under U.S. influence, the Council of Europe’s “Convention on Cybercrime” aims to harmonize computer crime laws around the world by obliging participating countries to outlaw computer intrusion, child pornography, commercial copyright infringement, and online fraud. The treaty also requires each participating country to pass laws that permit the government to search and seize e-mail and computer records, perform Internet surveillance, and order ISPs to preserve logs in connection with an investigation.