Criminal justice 8

Book 
can use other sources as well
Siegal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L., Essentials of Criminal Justice, 9th Ed., Cengage

Part 1
Chapter 13

Should status offenders be treated by the juvenile court? Explain. Should they be placed in confinement for such acts as running away or cutting school? Why or why not?
Should a juvenile ever be waived to adult court with the possible risk that the child will be incarcerated with adult felons? Why or why not?
Do you support the death penalty for children? Explain.
Should juveniles be given mandatory incarceration sentences for serious crimes, as adults are? Explain.

Chapter 14

Should the US government use drones to spy on suspected terrorists on American soil?
Would you allow federal agents to use intensive interrogation techniques such as waterboarding to pry information from terror suspects?
Should people who illegally download movies or music be prosecuted for theft?
How can Internet pornography be controlled considering that a great deal of adult content is available on foreign websites?

Part 2
bookdel Carmen, R. V. Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice, 9th Ed., Cengage

Chapter 15 

Distinguish between the old and the new concepts of electronic surveillance. In your opinion, which concept best respects individual privacy?
What does the case of Katz v. United States (1967) say, and why is this case important?
Give a summary of the following laws: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, FISA, ECPA, and CALEA. 
Under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, law enforcement authorities cannot tap or intercept wire communications or use electronic devices to intercept private conversations, except in two situations. What are those situations? Discuss each.

Part 3use this linkMICHIGAN v. BRYANT

5. According to the majority opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court erred in several respects. What were these errors, and do you disagree with the Court’s assessment?
6.Justice Scalia argues that the majority opinion resurrects the Courts earlier holdings on reliability. Do you agree that this is the effect? Do you think it is the intent of the majority to do so?
part 4
use this link
SMITH v. CAIN
4. The majority and dissent reached different conclusions about how the jury would view Boatner’s statements had they heard them. Do you agree with the majority or dissent about whether this evidence would have had an impact on the jury’s verdict.
5. Will Brady violations always result in a due process violation? When might they not?