Download the system calls source code and run the program on NetBeans. You will need to place comments in the code where identified and respond to the challenge questions associated with this assignment. To properly complete this assignment, you will need to submit two deliverables: a zip file containing the commented Java file and a worksheet response to the challenge questions.
To complete this assignment, review the Module Two Run the Code Guidelines and Rubric document.
Read the following case and answer the questions immediately following. Commonwealth v. Schnopps, 417 N.E.2d 1213 (Mass. 1981) On
Read the following case and answer the questions immediately following.
Commonwealth v. Schnopps, 417 N.E.2d 1213 (Mass. 1981)
On October 13, 1979, Marilyn R. Schnopps was fatally shot by her estranged husband George A. Schnopps. A jury convicted Schnopps of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Schnopps claims that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. We agree. We reverse and order a new trial.
We summarize those facts. Schnopps testified that his wife had left him three weeks prior to the slaying. He claims that he first became aware of the problems in his fourteen-year marriage at a point about six months before the slaying. According to the defendant, on that occasion he took his wife to a club to dance, and she spent the evening dancing with a coworker. On arriving home, the defendant and his wife argued over her conduct. She told him that she no longer loved him and that she wanted a divorce. Schnopps became very upset. He admitted that he took out his shotgun during the course of this argument, but he denied that he intended to use it.
During the next few months, Schnopps argued frequently with his wife. The defendant accused her of seeing another man, but she steadfastly denied the accusations. On more than one occasion Schnopps threatened his wife with physical harm. He testified he never intended to hurt his wife but only wanted to scare her so that she would end the relationship with her coworker.
One day in September, 1979, the defendant became aware that the suspected boyfriend used a “signal” in telephoning Schnopps’ wife. Schnopps used the signal, and his wife answered the phone with “Hi, Lover.” She hung up immediately when she recognized Schnopps’ voice. That afternoon she did not return home. Later that evening, she informed Schnopps by telephone that she had moved to her mother’s house and that she had the children with her. She 180*180 told Schnopps she would not return to their home. Thereafter she “froze [him] out,” and would not talk to him. During this period, the defendant spoke with a lawyer about a divorce and was told that he had a good chance of getting custody of the children, due to his wife’s “desertion and adultery.”
On the day of the killing, Schnopps had asked his wife to come to their home and talk over their marital difficulties. Schnopps told his wife that he wanted his children at home, and that he wanted the family to remain intact. Schnopps cried during the conversation, and begged his wife to let the children live with him and to keep their family together. His wife replied, “No, I am going to court, you are going to give me all the furniture, you are going to have to get the Hell out of here, you won’t have nothing.” Then, pointing to her crotch, she said, “You will never touch this again, because I have got something bigger and better for it.”
On hearing those words, Schnopps claims that his mind went blank, and that he went “berserk.” He went to a cabinet and got out a pistol he had bought and loaded the day before, and he shot his wife and himself. When he “started coming to” as a result of the pain of his self-inflicted wound, he called his neighbor to come over and asked him to summon help. The victim was pronounced dead at the scene, and the defendant was arrested and taken to the hospital for treatment of his wound.
The issue raised by Schnopps’ appeal is whether in these circumstances the judge was required to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Instructions on voluntary manslaughter must be given if there is evidence of provocation deemed adequate in law to cause the accused to lose his self-control in the heat of passion, and if the killing followed the provocation before sufficient time had elapsed for the accused’s temper to cool.
Schnopps argues that “[t]he existence of sufficient provocation is not foreclosed absolutely because a defendant learns of a fact from oral statements rather than from personal observation,” Schnopps asserts that his wife’s statements constituted a “peculiarly immediate and intense offense to a spouse’s sensitivities.” He concedes that the words at issue are indicative of past as well as present adultery. Schnopps claims, however, that his wife’s admission of adultery was made for the first time on the day of the killing, and hence the evidence of provocation was sufficient to trigger jury consideration of voluntary manslaughter as a possible verdict.
The Commonwealth quarrels with the defendant’s claim, asserting that the defendant knew of his wife’s infidelity for some months, and hence the killing did not follow immediately upon the provocation. Therefore, the Commonwealth concludes, a manslaughter instruction would have been improper. The flaw in the Commonwealth’s argument is that conflicting testimony and inferences from the evidence are to be resolved by the trier of fact, not the judge.
Withdrawal of the issue of voluntary manslaughter in this case denied the jury the opportunity to pass on the defendant’s credibility in the critical aspects of his testimony. The 182*182 portion of Schnopps’ testimony concerning provocation created a factual dispute between Schnopps and the Commonwealth. It was for the jury, not the judge, to resolve the factual issues raised by Schmopps’ claim of provocation.
We do not question the propriety of the verdict returned by the jury. However, based on the defendant’s testimony, voluntary manslaughter was a possible verdict. Therefore, it was error to withhold “from the consideration of the jury another verdict which, although they might not have reached it, was nevertheless open to them upon the evidence.”
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, the verdict of murder in the first degree is set aside, and the case remanded for a new trial.
Were the wife’s comments so shocking as to be tantamount to the defendant’s actually catching her in an adulterous act with her lover?
What are the implications of extending the provocation doctrine in infidelity cases from actually witnessing a spouse committing adultery to learning about it verbally?
Discussion Topic
Discussion TopicLast week, one of the main topics was vocabulary in context. Understanding the meaning of unknown words is an essential skill to comprehend any material. After reviewing all the available information you have under Week 2, reflect on the importance of finding clues that lead to the meaning of unknown words. Write a paragraph (no less than 8 sentences) where you mention and explain the 4 context clues. Refer to the role signal words play in identifying these clues. Provide suitable examples in your reflection.
research more thoroughly the concept of “victim-less” crimes. What did your research indicate they are? What is a list
Writing Assignment Help research more thoroughly the concept of “victim-less” crimes.
What did your research indicate they are? What is a list of what is commonly referred to as victimless crimes?
Critically think through your list from above.
Do you agree that some crimes are truly victimless? Why or why not? Be specific.
If you do think some are without victims, why do you think we continue to have them listed as crimes and utilize resources to prosecute them? What would your solution be?
I need a personal statement explaining Why are you interested in this specific program? Why do you want to
I need a personal statement explaining
Why are you interested in this specific program?
Why do you want to work toward this particular degree?
What previous academic and personal experiences will assist you as you work toward that degree?
What do you bring to the program that others might not? In other words, what makes you an exceptional and appropriate candidate?
My interest is criminal justice
Research Polk County, Florida law enforcement internet “stings.” Provide some facts and statistics on how many arrests are made
Research Polk County, Florida law enforcement internet “stings.” Provide some facts and statistics on how many arrests are made and consider highlighting some of the most important facts pertaining to what your research showed.
In Polk County Florida, are prosecutors able to successfully charge a person with soliciting a minor for sex, during an internet chat session, when the person solicited was really an adult police officer playing the role of an underage minor?
What is the “entrapment?”
In your opinion, should law enforcement be allowed to pose as minors and then successfully charge the suspect even though they aren’t a minor? IS this entrapment? Why or why not – defend your position.