Law

Student Name:

Instructor:

Subject:

Date

Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act versus the Uniform Controlled Act

This act was a revenue-producing act implemented to provide penalties for violations, but it denied the states the power to neither exercise the power of police to seize drugs used in illicit trade nor to punish those responsible. The act was primarily implemented to make the law uniform to all the states regarding the control of selling and using narcotic drugs (Swain, 1937).

The commissioners wanted to protect and control the sale and use of the drugs effectively in all the states. As a result of their efforts,  the growth rate and the spreading of the illicit narcotic drugs reduced because the act was strict in getting rid of the conflicting and inadequate laws and replacing them with effective ones. On the other hand, The Uniform Controlled Act of 1972 was implemented to replace the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. The Act established a drug scheduling system as it gave permission to seize any property used in illegal activities. With the Act, the states authorities could now design, reschedule, or delete substances whenever notified of any federal actions.

Public Drunkenness

A person is ruled guilty of public drunkenness offense if he/she is under the influence of alcohol to the standard that he might be a danger to himself, other people, or any property. A person is drunk if his speech, coordination, balance, or behavior is affected because of drinking alcohol. Police take drunk people as ‘trouble makers’ and as such, they ban the ‘trouble makers’ from scenes with a violent history from as a result of drunkenness. It is a crime as it endangers the life, safety and peace of the drunkard, people around and the public at large. The drunkenness makes people make poor decisions especially when on public property where one might be tempted to crimes such as robbery, assault, and others.

Blackmail and Extortion

Blackmail is an offense that consists of taking or trying to make money or property from another person by making him fear being accused of criminal acts or other immoral conduct. On the other hand, extortion is taking money or property against the law by virtue of an official position or public office as this is an oppressive way to misuse power. The ever-present element of the offense in extortion is the threat to the victim or to his property (Block & Gary, 2001). Public officers commit the offense by claiming authority to take what the law does not entitle to him/her. Blackmail involves letters, oral threats, and other written communications. The federal criminal code says that ‘whoever threatened by informing, or as consideration for not informing, against any violation of the law of US, receives, or demands money, or any valuable thing is guilty of blackmail.’ So, for any crime to be declared a blackmail, there need be a threat that’s conveyed with unlawful hope of gaining. There still needs to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded property from the victim. The accused is not guilty and is acquitted, unless the jury is satisfied beyond doubt that he made a demand (Janal, 1998).

Misfeasance and Nonfeasance

Misfeasance is practicing a legal act improperly. A defendant is liable of misfeasance if he has a duty to care towards the plaintiff, and the defendant breached the care-duty by performing a legal act improperly, which resulted to the plaintiff getting hurt. If a janitor leaves the floor she is cleaning wet, which consequently results to his employer falling and getting injured, the employer can sue her for misfeasance because she breached her duty by leaving a wet floor. On the other hand, nonfeasance describes a situation where one fails to act consequently resulting to harm to other parties. These terms are usually confusing and un-instructive. Even courts of law have difficulties determining whether the harm of the different cases results from a failure to act responsibly or harm resulted from an act that was never performed properly. For example, using the janitor example, a court can call the injury an act of nonfeasance by attending to the fact that the janitor did not post a warning sign stating that the floor is wet.

References

Block, & Gary N. Anderson. (2001). Blackmail, Extortion, and Exchange. New York Law School Law Review: pp. 541-561. Retrieved 13/8/2014.

Janal, D. S. (1998). Risky Business: How to Stop People From Blackmailing You From The Web. New York; John Wiley and Sons.

Swain, R. L. (1937), The Status of Exempt Narcotics Under The Uniform State Narcotic Act. Journal of The American Pharmaceutical Association. Retrieved 13/8/2014.