Victims of Crime

Creating better environments Anti-social behaviour Keeping people safe. Anti-social behaviour is any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person's quality of life. This threatening behaviour causes alarm and distress for law-abiding citizens, and the Home Office is responsible for drafting laws to ensure that it is prevented and those who do it are punished. Watch a video on how people are working together to stop anti-social behaviour Find out how police and local partners in West Cumbria are working together to tackle antisocial behaviour http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/index.html

Creating better environments Anti-social behaviour Keeping people safe. Anti-social behaviour is any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person's quality of life. This threatening behaviour causes alarm and distress for law-abiding citizens, and the Home Office is responsible for drafting laws to ensure that it is prevented and those who do it are punished. Watch a video on how people are working together to stop anti-social behaviour Find out how police and local partners in West Cumbria are working together to tackle antisocial behaviour http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/index.html

"The uncontested facts show that Evans cannot satisfy the requirement of "affirmatively prov[ing] prejudice." It is inconceivable to us, and not merely improbable as in Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 644 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 2257 n. 12, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976), that Evans would have gone to trial on a defense of intoxication, or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received. It just is not believable that Evans did all the things he does not deny having done, involving elaborate negotiations with the police over several hours, in some sort of alcohol-induced trance. In this respect the present case resembles Morgan v. Israel, 735 F.2d 1033 (7th Cir.1984). In evaluating the voluntariness of Morgan's failure to plead not guilty we said, "It is sufficiently clear that Morgan had no hope at all of an acquittal to enable us to infer that he would not have changed his plea to not guilty .... He admitted having shot Mallason; and when you shoot a person several times, with fatal results, the inference of deliberate homicide is irresistible .... The jury never would have believed that he lacked the ... elementary mental capacity required to form a murderous intent...." Id. at 1036. So here, no jury could have believed that Evans was not acting deliberately when he did all the things he did in the police station. Therefore, being told that if he had not been acting deliberately he would have been acquitted of some of the offenses with which he was charged could not have led him to change his plea and to win acquittal."

Victim Services

Corruption and denied rights for victims in Riverside County Nye Frank

ADA Civil Rights