Law and the American Legal System

Lance, a hacker stole 15,000 credit card numbers and sold them on the black-market making millions. Police caught Lance and two legal actions followed, one civil and one criminal. Who will be responsible for bring the civil case? What will be the outcome if the jury believes that lance is was responsible for identity theft? Who will be responsible for bringing the criminal case? What will be the outcome if the jury believes that lance stole the numbers?

Criminal and civil cases are critical issues of consideration in the above question. Criminal law is different from civil law in a distinct way. First, criminal law entails behaviors that are threatening to people in society or those that are outlawed in the community. Secondly, civil law aims to regulate the duties and rights between two or several parties. When a person has committed a crime, the government may file the case in court to punish them (Beatty et al., 2021). In such a case, the scenario is a criminal case. In the event that the defendant is found guilty in a criminal court, they can be sentenced. In a civil case, the party injured party is responsible for suing the defendant in a court of law.

According to Lance’s case, the defendant stole credit card numbers that were worth 15000. Additionally, the defendant made millions of dollars as a result of selling the products on the black market. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the defendant did not spend the money of the individuals who owned the credit card directly, he can be sued in a civil case because he was making a profit from the products. Similarly, Lance can be charged criminally because his behavior was contrary to society’s code of conduct. People who were affected by the defendant’s behavior are responsible for prosecuting Lance in a civil case because they were directly affected by the action. Embezzling money from members of society is a criminal offense if the culprit intends to make a profit from the action (Beatty et al., 2021).

The defendant will be prosecuted for the crime because he violated both civil and criminal law. If Lance is found guilty of the civil case, the court may decide that he is penalized and pays a certain amount for the damage caused. In the criminal case, the defendant is more likely to spend time in prison for the crimes that he has committed.

Carter was an employee of the sheriff office in Hampton, Virginia. When his boss, sheriff Roberts, was up for reelection against Adam carter “liked” the Adams campaigns Facebook page. Upon winning reelection sheriff Roberts fired carter who then sued on free speech grounds. Is a Facebook “like” protected under the first amendment?

The freedom of petition, religion, speech, and expression in the United States is protected by the First Amendment. In the case of Carter, who was employed in the Sheriff’s office in Virginia, his boss, Sheriff Roberts, was not impressed by his conduct because he had liked the Facebook page of the opposing candidate during the Sheriff’s reelection. Sheriff Robert was vying for reelection in the Sheriff’s office. Adam was the opposing sheriff candidate. Carter was fired by Sheriff Robert immediately after he won the election. After being sacked, Cater sued the Sheriff on free speech grounds. The primary reason why Carter was fired was because of his freedom of expression. The primary question that arises from the case is whether a Facebook Like is protected by U.S. law.

In Bland vs. Roberts, the plaintiff argued that their employer fired them because they expressed a different political opinion from that of the boss (Bland v. Roberts, 2012). The U.S. court ruled in favor of the employer (Bland v. Roberts, 2012). The judgment was because the First Amendment does not protect social media speech. However, in the case of Dinker vs. Des Moines, the United States Supreme Court stated that wearing a black band is protected by the First Amendment, although it is not considered actual speech. Similarly, in Texas vs. Johnson, the court stated that the First Amendment protects the burning of a national flag in spite of the fact that it does not constitute actual speech (Texas v. Johnson, 1989). Therefore, since different actions that do not constitute actual speech have been constitutionally protected by the law, a Facebook like is constitutionally protected in the First Amendment.

Annie and Bart are coworkers. In fact, they share a cubicle wall. Recently, they were involved in a fender-bender in the parking lot. Each blames the other for the accident, and the two have stopped speaking. Would you advise them to try and settle their dispute through arbitration, meditation, or with traditional lawsuit? Why?

Formal lawsuits may be avoided while resolving civil cases. Civil cases may be resolved in different ways, including litigation, mediation, and arbitration. Arbitration is a critical method of resolving civil cases involving a third party (Beatty et al., 2021). In arbitration, the third party has the authority to offer a binding decision in the case. Mediation is also an important dispute resolution method where a third party guides the offending and offended parties into reaching a consensus or voluntary settlement (Beatty et al., 2021). Thirdly, litigation is a dispute-resolving process that involves the court. To choose an appropriate dispute resolution method, two parties should understand what they are trying to achieve.

Annie and Bart were co-workers who worked closely together before they got themselves in a fender-bender. Additionally, the two parties had neighboring cubicles. The two parties blame each other for what happened in the parking lot. Since Annie and Bart do not talk to each other but wish to agree, I would advise them to choose mediation as the primary dispute resolution method. I would recommend mediation because it would help in defusing fear, anger, and tension between the two parties. Additionally, mediators have the interests of both parties and are great listeners. In the presence of a mediator, Annie, and Bart will realize that there is no winner or loser in the case because they would be dissuaded from blaming each other and arguing.

References

Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Abril, P. (2021). Business law and the legal environment. Cengage Learning.

Bland v. Roberts, 857 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Va. 2012).

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question