What are the regulatory equivalents of &quot;prosecute&quot; and &quot;convict&quot;? If I understand correctly, the terms &quot;prosecute,&quot; &quot;convict,&quot; &quot;guilty,&quot; and &quot;innocent&quot; are only used in criminal cases. What are the equivalents in cases of civil violations, such as traffic infractions or violations of radio regulations?
For a civil infraction, the typical term is found responsible/not responsible. For example, Michigan MCL 600.113(1)(b) (b) &quot;Civil infraction action&quot; means a civil action in which the defendant is alleged to be responsible for a civil infraction. For violations of Federal regulations, as in the FCC example, the term is found in violation/not in violation. 47 CFR § 95.313(b) If a Federal court finds that a Personal Radio Service station operator has willfully and knowingly violated any FCC rule, the operator may be fined up to $500 for each violation...
The concept of &quot;innocent until proven guilty&quot; is inherent in our constitutional protections for due process. As far as I know, the Supreme Court first formally recognized it as a rule in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 458-59 (1895): Now the presumption of innocence is a conclusion drawn by the law in favor of the citizen, by virtue whereof, when brought to trial upon a criminal charge, he must be acquitted, unless he is proven to be guilty. In other words, this presumption is an instrument of proof created by the law in favor of one accused, whereby his innocence is established until sufficient evidence is introduced to overcome the proof which the law has created. The key phrase -- for purposes of your question -- is &quot;sufficient evidence.&quot; At a criminal trial, sufficient evidence consists of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on “all the essential elements of guilt” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 361 (1970). But if the government wants to lock up a defendant pending trial, the question is not whether the defendant is guilty of the charged crime, but rather whether he poses a danger to the community and can be trusted to appear for trial. 18 U.S. Code § 3142(e)(1). And on those questions, he retains the presumption of innocence, but the government's burden of proof when arguing otherwise is substantially lower. The courts recognize both the potential of fleeing from the court and the prevention of additional crimes as legitimate bases for pretrial detention. In cases like Avenatti's, where the government is seeking pretrial detention because the defendant is a danger to the community, it needs to prove by clear and convincing evidence &quot;that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community.&quot; 18 U.S. Code § 3142(f)(2). However, if the government is seeking to hold the defendant because it does not believe he will appear for trial, it need only prove its case on that question by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1146 (2d Cir. 1986) (“For detention to be proper, the government had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no conditions of release would reasonably assure Martir's attendance at trial.”). As a side note, I'd agree with some of the answers that in practice, the bond system is regularly abused to the point that its underlying principles become unrecognizable. My answer is meant only to address the actual legal rules your question implicates.
I will address only the legal issues. Prosecutors for very good public policy reasons are not required to prosecute every crime they have suspicions about. When exercising this discretion they consider: Is the act, in fact, criminal - many of the things you list, while reprehensible, unethical, and possibly immoral are not actually criminal. Do they have the resources (time, staff, money) to collect the evidence and run this case as opposed to the thousands of other crimes out there. There are always more crimes than can be prosecuted and these have to be prioritised in some way. Do they have enough evidence to gain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People can be fired or resign on suspicion, they can't be convicted on it.
Habitual offender laws are written such that they represent distinct crimes. In your given example, the trier of fact will be asked to judge two distinct crimes: Did the defendant rob the bank Did the defendant break the habitual offender act An example from California, Penal Code Section 193.7 defines habitual offenders for traffic offenses: A person convicted of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 191.5 that occurred within seven years of two or more separate violations of Section 23103, as specified in Section 23103.5, of, or Section 23152 or 23153 of, the Vehicle Code, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, shall be designated as an habitual traffic offender subject to paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 14601.3 of the Vehicle Code, for a period of three years, subsequent to the conviction. The person shall be advised of this designation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 13350 of the Vehicle Code. The conviction of being an habitual traffic offender is applied an underlying statute's sentencing guidelines. In the case of California's Vehicle Code 14601.3(e)(3): Any habitual traffic offender designated under Section 193.7 of the Penal Code or under subdivision (b) of Section 23546, subdivision (b) of Section 23550, subdivision (b) of Section 23550.5, or subdivision (d) of Section 23566 who is convicted of a violation of Section 14601.2 shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for 180 days and by a fine of two thousand dollars ($2,000). The penalty in this paragraph shall be consecutive to that imposed for the violation of any other law. In this case, there is enhanced sentencing if one is convicted of the crime of driving under a suspended or revoked license if the person is also convicted of being an habitual traffic offender. The jury instruction template used when determining if an enhanced sentence is warranted requires that the defendant be found guilty of the underlying crime as well as the additional allegation of the sentencing factor: If you ﬁnd the defendant guilty of the crime[s] charged in Count[s] _________________[,] [or of attempting to commit (that/those) crime[s]][ or thelesser crimes[s] of ], you must then decide whether[, for each crime,] the People have proved the additional allegation that &lt;insert description of enhancement, sentencing factor, or factual issue>. [You must decide whether the People have proved this allegation for each crime and return a separate ﬁnding for each crime. To prove this allegation, the People must prove that: &lt;Insert elements required.> The People have the burden of proving each allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. If the People have not met this burden, you must ﬁnd that the allegation has not been proved. The person in your example is not being punished again for the first crime; they are being sentenced to a year for robbing the bank the second time and receiving a sentencing enhancement of a year for breaking the habitual offender statute.
Yes, but the difference is in nuance, not substance Illegal means “not according to or authorized by law” and lists unlawful as a synonym. Unlawful means “not lawful” with illegal as a synonym. So, by definition, they mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Illegal does carry a slight hint of being more egregious than unlawful and would be more often used of criminality than of a parking offense but it’s not wrong to use them interchangeably.
While there are certainly statutory and procedural vehicles for sanctions, they are almost never requested or allowed when moved for, and are almost never imposed by judges. Something very severe needs to occur and not just your typical discovery violation ("speaking objections" during depositions, being late with responses, failure to cite to affidavits, affidavits citing conjecture rather than fact, et). It would have to be something quite serious....like misleading the court or directly failing to comply with a direct order or ruling on a motion. It is exceedingly rare. It is most seen in Federal Court.
&quot;I have done nothing wrong&quot; You got up in court and, when the judge asked if you had done anything wrong, you said: &quot;yes&quot; (guilty). So, in the eyes of the law, you are in the wrong. Police are entitled to make mistakes and, when they do, the accused can either accept the consequences of that mistake by pleading guilty and paying the penalty or they can defend themselves and show that the police made a mistake. Unfortunately, while you have a right to a defence, you don't have a right to a defence at no cost.
Let's say you leave fake drugs in someone's yard. Eg, you expect the police to be dumb enough to believe it and arrest the other person Obstructing a public officer, specifically "deliberately hindering a public officer from carrying out official duties". Trespassing.