Vērtējums:
Publicēts: 06.04.2004.
Valoda: Angļu
Līmenis: Vidusskolas
Literatūras saraksts: Nav
Atsauces: Nav
  • Eseja 'In Depth Look at the Trial of Kevin Mitnick', 1.
  • Eseja 'In Depth Look at the Trial of Kevin Mitnick', 2.
  • Eseja 'In Depth Look at the Trial of Kevin Mitnick', 3.
  • Eseja 'In Depth Look at the Trial of Kevin Mitnick', 4.
  • Eseja 'In Depth Look at the Trial of Kevin Mitnick', 5.
Darba fragmentsAizvērt

The standard for pretrial release as stated by the American Bar Association recommends that "the law favors the release of defendants pending determination of guilt or innocence. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive in that it subjects persons who's guilt has not yet been judicially established to economic and psychological hardship, and interferes with their ability to defend themselves" (American Bar Association, 1968, p9). A period of 49 months prior to trial would most certainly be considered harsh and oppressive, denying various liberties provided to us such as the right to bail and a speedy trial. This was the case in the United States v. Kevin David Mitnick. Following a violation of probation conditions, Kevin Mitnick was arrested and indicted on several counts of computer fraud. He was held in custody for nearly four years while awaiting trial. During this time he was not only denied bail, but he was also denied of the entire bail hearing process and was forced to spend time in prison for computer related crimes that he had yet to be convicted of.…

Autora komentārsAtvērt
Atlants