Universal Military Training and Law

 

 

 

Answer the question based on one relevant statute and case from New York State.

 

1. New York Penal Code

In order to prove a case of burglary, Section 140 of the New York Penal code, prescribes two elements, namely: a) unlawful entry or trespass and (b) specific intent to commit crime.  In the present case while there has been a case of trespass; there was lack of intent to commit a crime. The circumstantial evidence such as absence of any weapons carried, harsh weather further corroborates the intent of the defendant. 
In his defense, the client can rely on People v Gaines, 74 N.Y. 2d 358 (1989), where the court held that “intent to commit a crime is required”. Since there was no mens rea or possession of any harmful weapons will serve as a good defense by itself. Secondly, he knew very well that the house was vacant as it was listed for sale and hence there was no one dwelling within the premises.  

Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now

We have some amazing discount offers running for the students

Place Your Order

2. Universal Military Training and Service Act 

The rights regarding Conscientious objections are provided both under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human rights as well as under S 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The rule exempts a person from combatant service in the armed forces who are conscientiously opposed to participation in the war by the reason of their “religious beliefs and training”. In the case of United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) the court, it has been held that where the objection was made in good faith and his conscientious objection is based upon individual training and belief, such exemption may be granted. 
Hence, the client, in this case, can take immunity under the above mentioned 6(j) provision of the Act, which gives exemption to religious objectors, not essentially with political, sociological or philosophical views. 

3.  Parental Privilege under Law

Corporal punishment has largely been accepted as the parental privilege and has been expressly incorporated in the New York statute under New York Penal Code 35.10(1) (2000). However, excessive punishment on their children may lead to prosecution for crimes such as assault, child abuse etc. Hence, primarily, there is a need to address the fact that spanking is “reasonable and appropriate physical force” , without there being any substantial harm caused to the person. In case the father is charged for the said action of spanking, he should assert a defense of parental privilege when force is used for the disciplinary purpose. In the case of Commonwealth v Rubeck,(MASS.APP.CT.2005)  the court opined that the use of physical force by the parent is privileged only when it is used for the training or education of the child or for the preservation of discipline. The client, therefore, can rely upon this judgment in his defense.
In this case, since the act of the father is reasonable and just, he can claim his exemption under parental privilege.  
The Heart Balm statute was originally passed to abolish the common law actions for alienation of affection, criminal conversation and breach of contract to marry. The facts of the case are similar to that of Wildey v. springs where the court upheld the action of the plaintiff against the defendant under Breach of promise Act, stating that, the broken engagement caused pain and suffering.
Since the immediate case concerns alienation of affection claim, the following factors have to be proven:
•    That love existed between the spouses prior to the onset of extra-marital relation
•    The marital love was alienated as a result of the relation with the third party and that
•    The act of the defendant caused such loss of affection. 

REFERENCES

JOHN SNAPE, 1 NEW YORK STATE PENAL CODE 2015 (Second ed. 2015). 
Section 140 mentioned on page 110
KRISTIN HENRARD, DEVISING AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM OF MINORITY PROTECTION: INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, MINORITY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION (2000). 
Jennifer Carr, Complicity and Collection: Religious Freedom and Tax, 11 U. St. Thomas L.J. 183 (2014).
United States v Seeger, Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/#annotation 
Kandice K. Johnson, Crime or Punishment: The Parental Corporal Punishment Defense-Reasonable and Necessary or excused abuse HeinOnline -- 1998 U. Ill. L. Rev. 413 1998
Commonwealth v. Rubeck, 64 Mass.App.CT.396 ( Mass.App.CT.2005)
Wildey v Springs, 840 F.Supp.1259 (1994)

Get Quality Assignment Without Paying Upfront

Hire World's #1 Assignment Help Company

Place Your Order