|← State and Federal Court Systems||Local Law Suit →|
Custom North Illinois Vs Connedy and Vs Frampton essay paper
Excellent North Illinois Vs Connedy and Vs Frampton essay writing service: professional academic help
Your honor, before this honorable court is Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton who have been accused of committing the act of fornication under the statutes of Illinois. As stipulated in section 11-8 under the Illinois statutes, any individual who engages in sexual intercourse with other individual who is not his or her spouse, commits an act of fornication if the conduct is notorious and open. Your honor, Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton, who are both undergraduate students at North Illinois College, were arrested by law enforcement officers at Dave’s apartment after they were found committing fornication act. Your honor, before heading to Dave’s apartment, Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton were spotted in the Good Times Pub and Grub by the law enforcement officers kissing each in the public and behaving in the manner to suggest that they were engaged in an intimate relationship. It is a result of this dysfunctional conduct that made the police follow them up to Dave’s apartment and witnessed them having illicit sex. Your honor, their act had the capacity to cause public shame and dishonor which can infuriate public decorum, having a demoralizing and undignified impact upon the society.
After being interrogated by the police, they admitted having committed the offence. Both Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton are not legally married, and as such, their act was a show of moral decadence, which is discouraged under the Illinois statutes. Your honor, the purpose of section-8 is to maintain a high level of social morality in our society, as well as reduce or minimize the spread and increase of the chances of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDS) and the number of illegitimate children or the number of abortion. Your honor, if Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton who are not legally married in this case are allowed to engage in indecency acts, such as fornication, which increases moral decadence in our society, then our society is poised for histrionic moral degradation which is against the spirit of our constitution.
Your honor, although Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton will argue that their right to privacy has been infringed, this right is applied to marital relations only. The accused are not legally married, and; therefore, they do not enjoy this fundamental right. Your honor, we are suspecting that Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton having been cohabiting for some time. Therefore, their criminal act is satisfactorily attested by circumstances which raise the presumption of unlawful intimacy and cohabitation. Your honor, there is reasonable ground to believe that Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton are guilty of section 11-8 under the Illinois statutes.
The nature of the act, your honor, when it is open, not only violates the statutorily articulated moral standards of the state, but also persuades others to infringe those standards, and demean public morality. Your honor, while we agree that the statute does not reprimand conduct which is fundamentally confidential and discrete, Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton acted in full light of the public by kissing and holding each other in public when having fun at Good Times Pub and Grub and later engaging in an open sex. Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton disrespect for the present standards of conduct is a clear indication of ignorance to the laws of this land. Your honor, in violating the statutes against living in an open fornication, the crime may be established without proof of even a single act of sexual intercourse but only by substantiation of circumstances raising the presumption that a criminal act has taken place.
Your honor, I, therefore, ask this court to find Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton guilty of committing fornication under the Illinois statute, section 11-8, which is considered as a class B misdemeanor. This law attract up to six months imprisonment and up to $1,500 in fines. I request this court to punish the accused with both the fines and imprisonment, so that it can act as a clear warning to those individuals in the society who would want to commit the same offence. Similarly, it is the duty of the constitution of this land to maintain a high level of social morality in our society and to reduce or minimize the spread and increase the chances of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDS) and the number of illegitimate children and the number of abortion. If people like Jessica and Dave Frampton are allowed to demean of moral value, it will be a poor example to the community, at large, and in particular to the majority of our teenagers who are currently in schools and colleges.
Your honor, my clients here Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton have been unlawfully arrested and detained for alleged accusations to have committed the act of fornication. As the Prosecutor earlier argued, section 11-8 of the Illinois statutes clearly stipulates that any individual, who takes part in sexual intercourse with another individual who is not his or her spouse (illicit sex), commits an act of fornication in the event that the behavior is notorious and open. Your honor, Jessica Connelly and Dave are merely classmates at North Illinois College and who does not know each other quite well. They run into each other at a local student hangout by coincidence. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest that Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton have been cohabiting for some time. Besides, their conduct was neither notorious nor open as stipulated in section 11-8 of the Illinois statutes. My clients did not fornicate in the open as alleged by the prosecutor.
To make up fornication crime, the parties involved must reside together explicitly and notoriously, upon terms as if the marital relation subsists between them (cohabiting). Your honor, there must be a habitual illicit intercourse between the parties involved. The prosecution evidence even dressed in its Sunday best is still in rags. Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton fornicated inside Dave’s apartment and not in the open as the law stipulates. Therefore, your honor, their act did not cause public disgrace and ignominy of the living together of persons of opposite sexes notoriously in unlawful intimacy, which would otherwise infuriate public affability, having a disgraceful and undignified impact upon the community as alleged by the prosecutor. Your honor, a single instance of illicit intercourse surely would not make up the crime of dwelling together in an explicit circumstance of fornication.
Your honor, the right to privacy of my clients has been infringed. The constitution provides every person the right to privacy. Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton were enjoying their time in privacy and did not represent themselves to the plain view of the outsiders. Your honor, the Fourth amendment asserts the rights of individuals to be protected in their homes. Besides, your honor, the Fifth Amendment within the context of self-discrimination clause permit the individuals of this land the right to construct a precinct of privacy, which the government of the day may not compel the individual to submit to his disadvantage. According to Article 1, section 6 of the Illinois statutes, every person of this land has the right to privacy or simply has the right to be let alone. The law enforcement officers infringed the right to privacy of my clients, by means of observing unlawful entering the Dave’s apartment and shamelessly watching young people having sex. The Dave’s apartment in this case is considered as an individual’s house and, therefore, it is the fundamental right of my client to enjoy the right to privacy entirely, and as such, the government had no right to infringe the right to privacy of my clients.
Your honor, my clients have suffered mental torture as a result of this case. First, they have been cast in the bad light to the public. According to the tort of false light, which is enshrined in the Illinois statutes, anyone who gives exposure to a matter concerning another individual before the eye of the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for attack of privacy. Thus, as a result of this case, my clients have been subjected before the public in a false light by the law enforcement officers and; therefore, these police officers should be held accountable. Moreover, before this case, my clients were regarded as decent people. Now, my clients can never face the public with courage like before. Similarly, all these days they have spent in detention has been hell to them, and, as a result, they have suffered acute psychological trauma and depression.
Although the right to privacy is not explicitly pointed out in the constitution, it is, in fact, a constitutional right. It is penumbra right that is derived from other rights explicitly mentioned in the constitution of this land. Certain guarantees in the bill of rights contain penumbras, created by emanation from those guarantees that assist in providing them essence and life. Numerous guarantees offer zones of privacy. Nevertheless, there must be a rational anticipation of privacy to exist. The individual must show evidence of an actual expectation of privacy, and the anticipation must be one that the community is geared up to acknowledge as rational. An individual house is, for a great purpose, a place where that particular anticipates privacy. However, statements or conducts or statements that he explicit to the plain view of outsiders are not cosseted.
One of the efficient methods of expanding or weakening a constitutionally guaranteed right is to alternate for the critical words or word of a constitutional guarantee other words or word, less or more bendable and less or more constrained in significance. This reality is well demonstrated by the use of the phrase right of privacy as an all-inclusive replacement for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against irrational seizures and searches. The term privacy is a wide theoretical and vague concept which can without difficulty be dried up in significance but which can also, on the other hand, without doubt be read between the lines as a constitutional ban against numerous things other than seizures and searches.
The constitution interpretation of section 11-8 of the Illinois statutes, which states that any individual who engages in sexual intercourse with other individual who is not his or her spouse, commits an act of fornication if the conduct is notorious and open can be viewed in different perspectives. The term words “notorious” and “open” can be interpreted differently because they are both ambiguous terms. There is no clear definition of both terms in the statutes of Illinois. However, they can both be used to defend or dispute one’s claim. After hearing both sides (the defense and prosecution), I hold that Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton have no case to answer. The prosecutor failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the act of fornication of Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton was notorious and open as enshrined in the constitution. The conviction of the prosecution that the two have been cohabiting before does not hold any water. Since Jessica Connelly and Dave Frampton did not have sexual intercourse in the public, their conduct did not cause public disgrace and ignominy of the living together of persons of opposite sexes notoriously in unlawful intimacy, which would otherwise infuriate public affability, having a disgraceful and undignified impact upon the community as alleged by the prosecutor.