Good Essay About Pursuant To §10 Of The New York Penal Code, “Serious Physical Injury” Means:

Essay

After the careful examination and consideration of the salient points of the Case No. 1, the relevant provisions of the New York Penal Law and punishment theories, the author have concluded the following.
Firstly, if take only the isolated circumstances of the offense committed by Jack, Bill, Mary and Pete, they may be punished for the robbery and assault simultaneously. In accordance with §160.15 of the New York Penal Law:
A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:
1. Causes serious physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
2. Is armed with a deadly weapon; or
3. Uses or threatens the immediate use or a dangerous instrument; or
4. Displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm
So, two legal aspects are sure to derive from the aforementioned paragraph: 1) the person suspected in the commission of robbery must have stolen the property of another person (victim) forcible; and 2) the suspect must have either caused a serious physical injury to the victim, or have been armed with a deadly weapon, or have used or threatened to use a dangerous instrument, or displayed a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm.
In Case No. 1 it is stated that the criminals have stolen $29, however, nothing has been clarified as to the use of any dangerous instrument, gun or something like that. But the victim – Robert Righteous, around 30 years old, is reported to have been hospitalized with concussion and a broken hand. After the incident, the victim’s broken hand has lost its movement and needs to be operated. In addition to this, his ability to concentrate has been affected, so from now his career as an auto mechanic is at a huge risk.

 physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.
In the given case, Robert Righteous has been caused a protracted loss of his hand’s function for it has lost its movement owing to the breaking done by the boys. From this it follows, that the young people may be deemed to have committed the robbery in the first degree which is a class B felony.
But, the main circumstances of the Case do not tell us who of the group has caused the injury to Mr. Robert. It may be that one person stole his money and the other one or ones caused the very injury. If it is in such a way, then under §160.10 of the New Penal Code:

A person is guilty of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property and when:

1. He is aided by another person actually present; or
2. In the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:
(a) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime

Robbery in the second degree is a class C felony.

It may be concluded that the boys and the girl can be accused of having committed both the robbery in the second degree and the robbery in the first degree. In order to answer who from the group is actually guilty of the robbery in the second degree and who is guilty of the robbery in the first degree, additional facts are needed to determine the type of the felony.
In addition to the robbery, on the author’s point of view, the group of the young people has also committed assault. In accordance with §120.10, Section 4 of the New York Penal Code:
In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of a felony or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant if there be any, causes serious physical injury to a person other than one of the participants.

This is the assault in the first level related to a class B felony.

And what about punishment then? The New York Penal Code (§70) lays down that robbery shall be covered by the concept of “indeterminate sentence”. In this instance the judge should state in his decision for which term the offender will be imprisoned. According to the abovementioned provision, in this case the law stipulates the maximum term of imprisonment equaling to 3 years and the minimum term of imprisonment equaling to 1 year. It lies within the judge’s discretion to decide. Following the legal practice, judge is expected to take into consideration the case law and his legal philosophy resting on the theories of punishment.
In the case of the People v. John Monteleone heard by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the judge noted that the appellant’s allegation respecting the improper conduct of the prosecutor was not reasoned because the prosecutor’s expressions and speech in the courtroom were grounded on the circumstances of the case. In the Case No. 1 the prosecutor Joel Notjoking stated that the group involved in the crime must be considered to be a chain gang and demanded from the judge to recognize it so according to §1.05(5) of the New York Penal Law.
The reference to and analysis of the relevant punishment theories would be helpful to hold a reasoned and just decision. Among these theories are: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and retribution. By the way, the materials of the Case No.1 do not contain the information whether the members of the group were brought to the similar responsibility prior to the given situation. If this accusation were the first, the young people would be likely to release on the tribal chief’s bail, especially it applies to Mary.
However, if the author were the judge in the Case No. 1, he would be more than likely to hold the following: owing to the fact that Pete is sure to be the mastermind behind the crime and the first degree principal, he should be imprisoned to the indeterminate sentence of 3 years. Even the facts that he underwent the treatment against the abuse violence neurotic syndrome in the past and was misdiagnosed will not work, because Pete had the full legal capacity at the moment of the crime’s commission.
Jack and Bill should be imprisoned to the indeterminate sentence of 1 year. Mary, to my mind, considering her four-month pregnancy, should be released on parole and brought to the tribal chief’s responsibility.
In Case No. 2 Charley Kones, a new husband of Cynthia Smith should be found guilty of the assault in the third degree. Under §120.00 of the New York Penal Code under which a person commits assault in the third degree where he by intention or negligence causes physical harm to another person. Since the Case materials do not state whether Charley Kones had dangerous things, firearms, it is presumed that he did not. Assault of a third level is found to constitute a misdemeanor of type A.
Though Charley Kones is Cynthia’s husband, John Jr. is not his son, and there is no evidence that Charley Kones has adopted Cynthia’s child to consider him legally responsible for the child’s support and care. But John Smith is legally responsible for the child’s care and support for being a natural parent of the latter. Under §260.00 of the New York Penal Law, a person shall be considered guilty of the abandonment of a child if he intentionally leaves the child in some place while being legally responsible for the child’s care and support. Secondly, John Smith shall be deemed guilty of the non-support of John Jr. since he remained alive and defected to Iraq in the sane mind and consciousness knowing that he has a family in the United States which certainly needs his support. So, he shall also be accused of violating the provisions of §260.05 of the New York Penal Code.
Besides this, John Smith may be found guilty of the bigamy and adultery because at the moment of marrying another woman in Iraq he was married to Cynthia living in the United States (§255.15 and §255.30 of the New York Penal Code).
Claudia Shell, a neighbor of Cynthia and Charley’s, knowing about the John Jr. condition that he needs to be given a vitamin supplement otherwise he may die, did not inform Dave Ravens, the building janitor, of the child’s illness. Consequently, she may be considered guilty of violating §120.25 and §260.10 of the New York Penal Code.
Speaking about Dave Ravens, it is quite difficult to constitute any wrongdoing on his side, because he was not aware of the child’s condition and helped him by taking him to his home for the parents were absent. However, Dave Ravens should have contacted the appropriate authorities to inform about the absence of the parents.