add a manager's challage at the end of each chapter question

Chapter 7, question 1

What is the difference between criminal law and civil law, both in terms of its purposes and procedure? Journalists' reports of famous criminal trials have made criminal law more familiar to laypeople than civil law. Whenever I talk with people about law, I find that they often misapply criminal law principles to civil (e.g., tort) law. Upon learning how legal principles apply to a problem, they are surprised. In this essay, criminal and civil law will be compared. Crime and civil law differ fundamentally in the concept of punishment.

Criminal law

Criminal law punishes guilty defendants by either (1) imprisonment in jail or prison, (2) fines paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, the death penalty: execution. A felony can result in a sentence of more than one year of imprisonment; a misdemeanor can result in a sentence of less than one year.

Civil law

Civil litigation, on the other hand, does not result in incarceration or execution of a Plaintiffs are generally reimbursed by defendants for damages caused by their behavior in civil litigation's behavior. Under contract law, punitive damages are never awarded. In a civil case under tort law, there is a possibility of punitive damages, if the defendant's conduct is egregious and had either (1) a malicious intent (i.e., desire to cause harm), (2) gross negligence (i.e., conscious indifference), or (3) a willful disregard for the rights of others. The use of punitive damages makes a public example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful conduct by others. Punitive damages are particularly Important in torts involving dignitary harms (e.g., invasion of privacy) and civil rights, where the actual monetary injury to plaintiff(s) may be small. One can purchase insurance that will pay damages a defendant: fees for tort claims. As a Homeowner's insurance policies, automobile insurance, and business insurance all provide insurance coverage. Nesses. In cottonocracy to this, defendants cannot purchase insurance to cover their crimes. court can order a defend Neven though a court can order a defendant to pay damages, if the defendant has no assets and no insurance, or if the defendant conceals assets skillfully, the plaintiff may receive nothing. Thus, large awards for plaintiffs in tort cases are often misleading.

Chapter 7, question 3

In criminal cases, describe the most used affirmative defenses. An infant is defined by law as a person who is under the age of majority (the age at which a person becomes a legal adult). As they lack the mental abilities of adults, infancy can be a partial defense to defuse the guilty mind requirement. Judges can, however, determine that a defendant under the age of majority is a legal adult and be tried accordingly.

Mistake of fact:

By proving that a defendant made an honest and reasonable mistake, the mistake of fact defense negates guilt. However, it is often difficult to prove that a mistake of fact was reasonable.

Intoxication:

Involuntary intoxication may occur when a person was forced to ingest or involuntarily ingested an intoxicating agent. The defense applies only if intoxication impairs a person's ability to recognize the wrongdoing of his or her actions.

Insanity: It is rare for insanity to be used as a criminal defense, despite its well-known status. A psychiatrist usually testifies to the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime, not just their claim of being crazy. If a defendant's mental state at the time of the crime was so impaired that they were unable to distinguish right from wrong, or comprehend the wrongful nature of their actions, they may be able to claim insanity.

Duress:

The duress defense is available to Bill if Greg threatened him with immediate bodily harm or death unless Bill committed a wrongful act. For Bill to sue under duress, he must establish the following three elements: 1) Greg threatened him with severe bodily harm or death. 2) Greg's threat must be more severe than Bill's crime. It must be inescapable and immediate for Greg to threaten Bill with serious harm.

Entrapment:

When a police officer or government official suggests a crime to the defendant, a defendant would not otherwise commit it because of entrapment

Chapter 8, question 3

Explain the elements required to prove five intentional torts

Afraid:

Putting another at risk of immediate, offensive bodily contact. Assault occurs if reasonable apprehension exists, regardless of fear.

Battery:

Contacting someone intentionally, unwanted, and reasonably offensively.

Defamation:

Publicizing or communicating a false statement harmful to an individual's reputation intentionally. The act of publicly disclosing a private fact about another that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.

False light:

A type of privacy tort that creates an incorrect impression, such as attributing qualities or beliefs that a person does not hold.

False imprisonment:

For a long period of time, confining or restraining someone against their will.

Chapter 8, question 4

A New Jersey high court ruled that a business can sue another for commercial defamation for negligent statements made to its customers. To prevail, the plaintiff did not need to prove that the defendant had committed actual malice. On the boardwalk in New Jersey, Senna owned Wildwood Fascination, an arcade game. His rival, Florimond, operated nearby Olympic Fascination, a direct competitor. New Jersey Chance Control Commission regulates fascination as a competitive game of chance. Prize tickets are given to winners. It was reported to Senna that Olympic staff members told customers that Wildwood would not honor prize tickets. Eventually, Senna reopened the business under Flipper's Fascination under a new name. Over a public address system in 2003, Olympic broadcast negative comments about Flipper's. Flipper's told customers winning tickets would not be honored. As a result, Senna sued Florimond, alleging that he defamed his business and tortuously interfered with his ability to do business at Flipper's. According to the trial court, actual malice was not demonstrated. An appeal was filed by Senna. The decision was reversed and remanded. A commercial speech relates primarily to the speaker's economic interests. In defamation actions involving commercial speech, the common law standard is negligence, not malice. According to the Olympic broadcast, Flipper's was dishonest and screwed all his customers. The purpose of this was purely commercial, not political. Public interest was not involved. The goal was to drive customers away from Flipper's. A claim could not be brought if the statements were true.However, Florimond was unable to demonstrate that Senna was dishonest. There was no problem with the way the business was run by the Commission that regulated it. The case will proceed to trial.