|
historical documents >
USA >
State laws
Arizona Immigration Law / SB1070
or Senate Bill 1070
In April 2010,
Arizona adopted the nation’s
toughest law on illegal immigration,
provoking a nationwide debate
and a
Justice Department lawsuit.
The law,
known locally
as SB1070 or Senate Bill 1070,
was aimed at
discouraging illegal
immigrants
from entering or remaining
in the state.
It coincided
with economic anxiety
and followed a number
of
high-profile crimes
attributed to illegal immigrants
and smuggling,
though federal data suggest
that
crime is falling in Arizona,
as it is nationally,
despite a
surge of immigration.
The law’s supporters said
it
reflected frustration
over inaction
by the federal government,
while critics said it would lead
to
harassment of Hispanics
and turn the presumption
of
innocence upside down.
The legislation
requires police officers,
“when practicable,”
to detain people
they reasonably
suspect
are in the country
without authorization
and to verify
their status
with federal officials,
unless doing so would hinder
an
investigation
or emergency medical treatment.
The law also makes it
a state crime
— a misdemeanor —
to not carry immigration papers.
In addition,
it allows people
to
sue local government
or agencies
if they believe
federal or state
immigration law
is not being enforced.
Since the law was passed,
it has been weakened,
piece by piece.
Updated: April 19, 2012
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration-and-emigration/arizona-immigration-law-sb-1070/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/arizona-immigration-law-sb-1070
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/opinion/let-the-arizona-law-stand-then-wither.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/
states-await-supreme-court-hearing-on-arizona-immigration-law.html
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm
Florida Statutes > Stand your ground law
(3) A person who is not engaged in
an unlawful activity
and who is attacked in any other
place where he or she has a right to be
has no duty to retreat and has the
right to stand his or her ground
and meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes
it is necessary to do so to prevent
death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another
or to prevent the commission of a
forcible felony.
The 2011 Florida Statutes
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
The N.R.A. pushed Florida’s Stand
Your Ground law
through the State Legislature over
the objections of law enforcement groups,
and it was signed by Gov. Jeb Bush.
It allows people to attack a
perceived assailant
if they believe they are in
imminent danger, without having to retreat.
John Timoney, formerly the Miami
police chief,
recently called the law a “recipe for disaster,”
and he said that he and other
police chiefs had correctly predicted
it would lead to more violent
road-rage incidents and drug killings.
Indeed, “justifiable homicides” in
Florida have tripled since 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/opinion/embarrassed-by-bad-laws.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
TEXAS PENAL CODE LAW OF PARTIES
PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 7.
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER
SUBCHAPTER
A. COMPLICITY
Sec. 7.01.
PARTIES TO OFFENSES.
(a) A
person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is
committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is
criminally responsible, or by both.
(b) Each party to an offense may be charged with commission of the offense.
(c) All traditional distinctions between accomplices and principals are
abolished by this section, and each party to an offense may be charged and
convicted without alleging that he acted as a principal or accomplice.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is
criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:
(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or
aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the
definition of the offense;
(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he
solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to
commit the offense; or
(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with
intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort
to prevent commission of the offense.
(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another
felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of
the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the
offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that
should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 7.03. DEFENSES EXCLUDED. In a prosecution in which an actor's criminal
responsibility is based on the conduct of another, the actor may be convicted on
proof of commission of the offense and that he was a party to its commission,
and it is no defense:
(1) that the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the
offense is legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual
capacity; or
(2) that the person for whose conduct the actor is criminally responsible has
been acquitted, has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a
different offense or of a different type or class of offense, or is immune from
prosecution.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
SUBCHAPTER
B. CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS
Sec. 7.21.
DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Agent" means a director, officer, employee, or other person authorized to
act in behalf of a corporation or association.
(2) "High managerial agent" means:
(A) a partner in a partnership;
(B) an officer of a corporation or association;
(C) an agent of a corporation or association who has duties of such
responsibility that his conduct reasonably may be assumed to represent the
policy of the corporation or association.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 7.22. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. (a) If conduct
constituting an offense is performed by an agent acting in behalf of a
corporation or association and within the scope of his office or employment, the
corporation or association is criminally responsible for an offense defined:
(1) in this code where corporations and associations are made subject thereto;
(2) by law other than this code in which a legislative purpose to impose
criminal responsibility on corporations or associations plainly appears; or
(3) by law other than this code for which strict liability is imposed, unless a
legislative purpose not to impose criminal responsibility on corporations or
associations plainly appears.
(b) A corporation or association is criminally responsible for a felony offense
only if its commission was authorized, requested, commanded, performed, or
recklessly tolerated by:
(1) a majority of the governing board acting in behalf of the corporation or
association; or
(2) a high managerial agent acting in behalf of the corporation or association
and within the scope of his office or employment.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993,
73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 7.23. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSON FOR CONDUCT IN BEHALF OF
CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. (a) An individual is criminally responsible for
conduct that he performs in the name of or in behalf of a corporation or
association to the same extent as if the conduct were performed in his own name
or behalf.
(b) An agent having primary responsibility for the discharge of a duty to act
imposed by law on a corporation or association is criminally responsible for
omission to discharge the duty to the same extent as if the duty were imposed by
law directly on him.
(c) If an individual is convicted of conduct constituting an offense performed
in the name of or on behalf of a corporation or association, he is subject to
the sentence authorized by law for an individual convicted of the offense.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 7.24. DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. It
is an affirmative defense to prosecution of a corporation or association under
Section 7.22(a)(1) or (a)(2) that the high managerial agent having supervisory
responsibility over the subject matter of the offense employed due diligence to
prevent its commission.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1993,
73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
TEXAS PENAL CODE > LAW OF PARTIES, copie 1.9.2007,
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/word/pe.002.00.000007.00.doc
| 
