Word: penalities
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...arrests as possible. To give errants every possible chance, a C.D. man first politely announces: "You are interfering with the free movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Please move." (Pause.) "Will you move?" Step 2: the resister is told that his act violates Section 406 of the Pennsylvania penal code and "amounts to disorderly conduct." Once more he is asked, "Will you move?" Step 3: "You are now under arrest. Will you walk to the emergency patrol wagon?" Step 4: "Do you want to be carried?" If the answer to the last question is yes, the C.D. man warns...
...with a cocked gun in a vain effort to make him confess, then hauled to Hilda's hospital room, where the dying girl had already identified the killer as everyone from her own doctor to one of the FBI's ten top fugitives. In such cases, the penal code of the State of Nuevo León specifies that the suspect be placed in a line-up with similar persons in similar dress. Simmons was ordered to wear a white shirt and dark trousers and brought into the room with white-coated doctors. Hilda by then could hardly...
...largely on the strength of Hilda's alleged identification. Although an appellate court tossed out that key evidence as illegal in 1962, the original trial judge simply pronounced Simmons guilty once more on the basis of disputed facts and such other items as his falsified tourist card and "penal antecedents." In 1964 the Mexican Supreme Court upheld that verdict; last month Simmons' bid for legal exoneration by the state's governor was turned down...
...REPORTS: "MEN IN CAGES" (CBS, 10-11 p.m.). CBS News Correspondent Roger Mudd visits inmates and officials at some of the best and worst penal institutions in the U.S. to examine the problems and discuss their cause and prevention...
...CLEAN tells it, the villain is Section 311 of the California Penal Code, a 1961 response to the U.S. Supreme Court's famous decision in Roth v. U.S. (1957), which held for the first time that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity because such expression is "utterly without redeeming social importance." Did this mean that "social importance" might save challenged material? The court did not say. Although Roth established other criteria for judging whether alleged obscenity should be protected, social importance was not included. In writing Section 311, however, the California legislature did include that test, thus going...