A introduction of Criminal law :
In 1838, a half century before the Dudley & Stephens case, Edgar Allan Poe published his only complete novel, a story about a marooned whaling boat that coincidentally featured a character named Richard Parker. In the book, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, Parker drew the “short straw” and was promptly cannibalized. Less coincidental, the tiger stranded on a lifeboat with the title character in Life of Pi, the 2002 novel that became an award-winning film in 2012, was also called Richard Parker.
Many, if not most, of the dilemmas that appear at the periphery of criminal law involve the effects of technological progress on social conditions. (For recent examples where the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed technological change, see Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013) (upholding the constitutionality of a statute requiring that DNA samples be taken from all
persons arrested for serious crimes), and United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (holding that the installation and use of a GPS tracking device on a car constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search”).) Criminal law
In criminal law, as in many other areas of law, legislators and theorists are constantly playing catch-up in dealing with changes that have no precedent and no obvious guidelines. As new technologies reshape how we share information and communicate, law must address what ways of transmitting data (music, movies, books, inventions, ideas) are permissible given the evolving notions of intellectual property and what ways demand limitations, protection, and sanctions. Criminal law
As medical technology affects our ability to heal and change our bodies and minds and even affects how we conceive our nature as physical and mental beings, law must confront and redefine our rights to draw benefits from medical progress and to control our destiny. As we draw upon technology to form new communities that do not depend on geography or genealogy, we need law to set the rules by which we may assume roles in each others’ lives. In these areas, certain kinds of conduct will be allowed and perhaps even seen as desirable, and other kinds will be seen as harmful and subject to prohibition.Criminal law
The Supreme Court granted certiorari but ultimately dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor, filed a dissent, arguing that the case was plainly controlled by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993), which held that a private party=s prosecution for criminal contempt barred a subsequent
prosecution by the government for the same offense. The Chief Justice cited a long history establishing that crimes may only be prosecuted on behalf of the government and observed.Criminal law