Criminal statutes

A Chicago Tribune editorial was enclosed with another letter I received. Andrei Vishinsky had called upon the United Nations to adopt a criminal statute that would restrict freedom of speech and of the press, and the Tribune went on to say that what we were doing would make an excellent precedent for Vishinsky ... 

Today, to a large measure, the burden of proof still falls upon the accuser, and that ephemeral and undocumented "presumption of innocence" concept provides some measure of protection. They, the accusors, must prove you are guilty. But, as the legal structure drifts from the criminal statutes to the regulatory statutes, this protection is lost. You must prove that you are innocent. The perfect example is the random urine test, which demands, without any probable cause, that you prove that you do not have drugs in you. There is no presumption of innocence. This has been the sad state of our income tax laws for years, and now it is becoming a reality in our drug laws. Prove to the court that you didn t know that these mushrooms were psychoactive Shades of the Inquisitions of a few hundred years ago. Or the Salem travesties of more recent times. Prove to us you are not a witch. 

Similar developments have taken place elsewhere in Europe Belgium provides an example of a jmisdiction that has a mixed historical relationship with this idea. Belgian law acknowledged as long ago as 1934 that corporations could be the subjects of criminal statutes, but did not allow that such a body could actually commit a crime until 1948, and even then did not allow that such an entity could be criminally... 

Crime Act that constitutes the violation of a law or criminal statute. 

The CAAA90 contains a broad array of authorities to make the law more readily enforceable, thus bringing it up to date with the other major environmental statutes. EPA has new authorities to issue administrative penalty orders up to U.S. 200,000 and field citations up to U.S. 5,000 for lesser infractions. Civil judicial penalties are enhanced. Criminal penalties for knowing violations are upgraded from misdemeanors to felonies, and new criminal authorities for knowing and negligent endangerment will be established. 

Though shocking in terms of civil liberties, the concept is consistent with recent trends in the criminal justice system. British criminologist Nikolas Rose has described the increased employment of preventive models in the United States in the efforts to control crime (Rose, 1999). Sexual predatory statutes in some states, for example, require propensity hearings . Megan s law requires those convicted of sexual crimes to register the fact with local police after they have served their time. 

The criminal case regarding the Columbine Massacre will remain open indefinitely because there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. However, questions about protecting our children at school will remain forever. No one expected that our sense of security would be threatened — by our own children. It has been threatened time-and-time-again, and there seems to be no solution or remedy at hand. 

Validity of 18 U.S.C.A. Sect. 832. et seq. [141] and its predecessor statutes have not been questioned. Courts upheld criminal actions by stressing the statute s importance in the protection of passengers aboard public conveyances. 

This is an extremely harsh statute. As a practical matter, FDA exercises its prosecutorial discretion only to bring cases for continuing violations of law, violations of an obvious and flagrant nature, and intentionally false or fraudulent violations. Although there have been attempts to change the criminal liability standard under the FD C Act by legislation, none has so far been successful. 

This statute, therefore, is not one which punishes a person for the use of narcotics, for their purchase, sale or possession, or for antisocial or disorderly behavior resulting from their administration. It is not a law which even purports to provide or require medical treatment. Rather, we deal with a statute which makes the status of narcotic addiction a criminal offense, for which the offender may be prosecuted at any time before he reforms. California has said that a person can be continuously guilty of this offense, whether or not he has ever used or possessed any narcotics within the State, and whether or not he has been guilty of any antisocial behavior there. 

Under any conception of legal necessity, one principle is clear The defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a determination of values. 1 W. La lave A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 5.4, p. 629 (1986). In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a Government-approved research project). Whereas some other drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use, see 21 U.S.C. 829 the same is not true for marijuana. Indeed, for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has no currently accepted medical use at all. 811. 

This principle is firmly entrenched in the Model Penal Code (MPC), a model statute drafted by the American Law Institute in 1962 to help states define crimes consistently across the country (5). Many states have adopted the MPC, in whole or in part, and it has helped unify criminal law in the United States. The MPC recognized the incongruence of criminalizing actions performed by someone who is asleep or unconscious and incorporated that recognition into its definition of a voluntary act. Section 2.01 of the MPC states A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act... 

Webster s Dictionary defines a standard as something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example and states that standard applies to any definite rule, principle, or measure established by authority (standards of behavior) (Webster s, 2003). From a contemporary managerial perspective, standards of conduct for a pharmacist and for the operation of a pharmacy are derived both from laws and from professional standards or values. Standards for professional conduct and the operation of a pharmacy, whether stated formally in statutes and regulations or present in professional codes of ethics, are important for managers to understand and apply. Violations of these standards can affect the licensure status of a pharmacy practice site and/or its pharmacists, may result in litigation if a patient is harmed subsequent to a violation, and in the most serious cases can result in criminal prosecution. Both criminal prosecution and civil liability resulted in the case of Robert Courtney, the pharmacist discussed in the scenario. Courtney was sentenced to 30 years in prison, fined 25,000, and ordered to pay 10.4 million in restitution to the patients and families affected. These penalties were in addition to the civil judgment of 2.2 billion (Stafford, 2002). 

The CSA centralized federal regulations into one statute and separated marijuana from addicting drugs. At the federal level both simple possession and nonprofit distribution of small amounts of marijuana were changed from felonies to misdemeanors. In addition, first-time offenders could have their criminal records expunged. Many states copied these federal efforts, and within a few years all but Nevada had reduced simple possession of marijuana to a misdemeanor. 

Each violation of the Anti-kickback Statute carries the potential for a 25,000 criminal fine, a civil fine, or up to 5 years imprisonment, or all of these. The court may also impose repayment of the amount of losses sustained by the government. Additionally, exclusion from participation in all Medicare and Medicaid programs is required for individuals or corporations convicted of violating the Anti-kickback Statute. 

Many companies, in their internal training, include information about the anti-kickback statute. The Office of the Inspector General in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) enforces the antikickback law. HHS administers the Medicaid and Medicare programs. Any serious violations are referred for potential criminal prosecution to the Department of Justice administrative sanctions also are possible. 

The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 is the principal mode of federal law relating to anabolic steroids. Pursuant to the statute, as well as extant federal criminal laws, several anabolic steroids are now classified as Schedule III controlled substances, and (among other things) their possession and distribution may are criminalized. See Title 21 of the United States Code, section 802 (41) (A), 841(a)(1), 333 (e). 

---