According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is every war between nations a &quot;genocide&quot;? In the UN's Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court you'll find the definition of genocide, Article 6 Genocide For the purpose of this Statute, &quot;genocide&quot; means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; [...] It makes sense if you're trying &quot;with intent to destroy [...] in part a ethnic, racial, or religious&quot; group to utilize the term &quot;genocide.&quot; But if one nation state's army declares war on another nation state's army and enters into open hostilities both will be actively trying to destroy at least a part of the other's national group (the enlisted armed combatants if nothing else). Does that mean every war is genocide?
No. &quot;Destroy&quot;, in the context of the crime of genocide, refers to elimination of the entire collective &quot;nation&quot; and not merely some people, even a significant number of people, who are part of that nation. The notion is that &quot;Killing members of the group&quot; together with the other means identified, leaves the group with no members if the attempt is successful (or at least, eliminates all but an insignificant number of members of the group). Typically, a war is fought for control of territory, or people or resources in a territory, not to destroy the people of a nation and completely replace them.
Yes to everything. Justified use of force is assault / battery / homicide (as appropriate). "Assault" means that a person has placed someone in fear of their life or person. "Battery" means that a person has physically struck someone in some way. "Homicide" means that a person has killed another human. None of these definitions speak to the legality of the action. You are right about the example being assault. Justified use of force is de facto legal. Assault, battery, and homicide are normally crimes, but the justifications for using force carve out exceptions. If the circumstances fit within the justification, the person using the justified force has not committed a crime. (Generally speaking, the person targeted by said force has.) If the situation you describe fits within the laws of justification within the state (and to be fair, it probably does), then your co-worker is right about the actions being perfectly legal. Police are picky about what they investigate, and prosecutors are picky about what they charge. If it's 100% clear from the evidence that you were justified in your use of force, prosecutors will (typically) not press charges, and so police will not bother with an arrest or further investigation. It's really not worth the time and effort for a case that has 0% chance of producing a conviction. However, if the police and prosecutors have some doubts (e.g., they think your force was excessive and therefor not justified), they can still press charges. Being charged with a crime does not mean you have committed a crime. And vice-versa. Justification is an affirmative defense against charges of assault / battery / homicide. An affirmative defense does not mean "I confess to the crime but have a really good excuse." It means that you admit to certain facts that would normally be beneficial to the prosecution, but claim additional facts that either mitigate or make you innocent of the given charges. In the case of justified force, you are admitting to the action of assault, but claiming innocence. When making your defense, your theory of defense must be internally consistent. You cannot admit to a fact when convenient and deny it when it is inconvenient. "I was in Santa Fe at the time, and anyway, Sam did it," is an example of a self-consistent theory that gives multiple reasons to acquit. That's good, because the jury only needs one reason that gives them pause, and now you've got two chances at that. "I was in Santa Fe at the time, and anyway, he was threatening my life," is not internally consistent. If you argue justification, you explicitly declaim any alibi. This situation is more dangerous, because your defense rests entirely on the credibility of the justification. But if you argue an alibi, you implicitly declaim any justification. So building your defense on things the prosecution can disprove is much worse than taking an affirmative defense of justification.
Usually these words refer to whether something (e.g. a law or government action) is or is not in accordance with the Constitution, including its amendments, as currently interpreted by US courts including the Supreme Court. So in view of Chaplinsky, the Constitution (as interpreted) does not protect "fighting words", and therefore a law that forbids "fighting words" is constitutional. As phoog points out in the comments, the word can also be used to refer to whether something is in accordance with the Constitution, as the speaker thinks it ought to be interpreted. So somebody might say that a certain law or action is (un)constitutional, even if a court has not considered it, if their own personal interpretation of the Constitution is (or isn't) consistent with it. Or, if a court has struck it down (or upheld it) but the speaker thinks they erred in doing so.
england-and-wales &quot;Lead defendant&quot; is not used, unless colloquially by some, but a comparable term would be &quot;principal defendant&quot; which is more than mere style as it becomes important when establishing the hierarchy of defendants for, say, culpability and at sentencing (i.e. it has some legal implications). It could also relate to the first-named on the indictment (see rule 3.32(1)(b)(ii) Criminal Procedure Rules 2020) and often this is the principal, but the prosecutor has discretion on the order of names on the indictment, because: It is important to bear in mind that defendants are called to give evidence in the order in which their names appear on the indictment. This means that a tactical decision may need to be made as to the order of defendants on the indictment, bearing in mind the evidence and the nature of the case. Source Although tagged united-states, I have followed the guidance from the LawSE Help Centre: &quot;Even if you supply a jurisdiction tag, we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions ... please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag]&quot;
State crimes must be prosecuted by state prosecutors in state courts. Federal crimes must be prosecuted by federal prosecutors in federal courts. hszmv's answer describes the DOJ's policy where there is overlap. In Indian country (this is a term of art in U.S. law), jurisdiction is much more complicated. In brief, there is often exclusive tribal jurisdiction when the alleged offence has an Indian accused and Indian victim. For a listed set of major crimes, jurisdiction is exclusively federal (except in states where that jurisdiction has been granted to the states), even if incorporating as federal law the state's definitions of particular crimes.
The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not list the digital nature of the evidence as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing / punishment. Rather, it lists: a. repeated commission of crimes; recidivism of offences; b. grave consequences of the commission of a crime; c. commission of a crime by a group of persons or a group of persons as a result of a preliminary conspiracy, by an organized group, or by a criminal community (criminal organization); d. especially active role played in the commission of a crime; e. involvement in the commission of the crime of the persons who suffer from heavy mental derangement or who are in a state of intoxication, or of persons who have not attained the age of criminal responsibility; f. commission of a crime by reason of national, racial, or religious hatred or enmity, out of revenge for the lawful actions of other persons, or with the purpose of concealing or facilitating another crime; g. commission of a crime against a person or his relatives in connection with his official activity or the discharge of his public duty; h. commission of a crime against a woman who is obviously in a state of pregnancy, or against a minor, another defenseless or helpless person, or a person who is dependent on the guilty person; i. commission of a crime with especial brutality, sadism, or mockery, or involving torments for the victim; j. commission of a crime with the use of weapons, ammunition, explosives, fake explosives, specially manufactured technical means, poisonous or radioactive substances, medicinal or other chemical and pharmacological preparations, or with the use of physical or mental compulsion; k. commission of a crime during a state of emergency, natural or social disaster, or during mass disturbances; l. commission of a crime, abusing confidence placed in the guilty person through his official position, or through a contract; m. commission of a crime with the use of uniforms or documents of representatives of the authorities. As a practical matter, this makes sense. Facts are determined based on evidence. If the evidence considered in the totality of the case, gets the finder of fact to a particular conclusion, it should not matter any further what the nature of that evidence was. I also see no logical or practical distinction between, for example, evidence of an act of murder captured by digital camera and that same evidence captured on cinematographic film.
They committed the crime of providing material support for terrorism Specifically, 18 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B. "Material support" is defined so broadly that it captures maintaining the household of an Islamic State fighter. Most countries have similar laws and they are all equally problematical as to their legitimacy. Basically, such people are a giant pain in the ass to their governments and so, their governments are generally content to let them rot in Syrian refugee camps so they don't have to deal with them.
The Constitution does not define any crimes (except for an explicit limit on what can be considered 'treason.') It places limits on what penalties the government may apply for crimes and how crimes are tried in court, but it does not itself actually create any criminal offenses. Rather, state and federal law do that. Having said that, if a state government creates a crime of murder (which, obviously, they all do,) the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does require that that law protect all people within the jurisdiction of that state. That is, a state cannot make a law criminalizing the murder of a white person, but not of a black person, for example. States can't just pick and choose who is protected by their laws. It would not violate the U.S. Constitution if a state completely decriminalized murder, though. It's exceptionally unlikely to happen, but it would not be a violation of the Constitution. Depending on exactly what you mean by 'murder,' it could be argued that murder by the government is unconstitutional, though. The 14th Amendment bans states from depriving anyone of life without due process of law: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Similarly, the 5th Amendment provides an equivalent protection from the federal government: No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law