Page 33 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 33 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
27
by clear and convincing evidence.”81 Pickering creates a balancing test between simple false statements and recklessly false statements in the context of public versus private concern. On point here is the conclusion that reckless false statements are not protected speech.
A case relevant to whether the use of penalty enhancement is justifiable for hoaxers is United States v. Dunnigan (1993) where the Court held that “upon a proper determination that the accused has committed perjury at trial, a court may enhance the accused’s sentence under section 3C1.1, pp. 5-11.” 82 The Court concluded that a sentence enhancement does not undermine an individual’s right to testify, as he may either testify truthfully or remain silent. A person may not “willfully impede or obstruct or attempt to impede or obstruct the administration of justice during the investigation or prosecution of the instant offense.” The Court’s language appears to suggest that, while a person has constitutional safeguards, lying to the court, impeding an investigation, and misleading law enforcement are not constitutionally protected rights. Specific to this research, one might infer that some judges take the issue of false claims quite seriously. Moreover, penalty enhancement is not only acceptable to, but also supported by the court.
The most definitive case in this area may be LaChance v. Erickson, in which Chief Justice Rehnquist writes in the unanimous opinion of the court that:
81 In Pickering (Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563; 88 S. Ct. 1731,) the court determined that “absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, a teacher's exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not have furnished the basis for his dismissal from public employment; and (4) as no such showing had been made, the teacher's rights to freedom of speech were violated.” Nielson, Jr., Howard C., “Recklessly False Statements in the Public-Employment Context,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, Summer 1996, pp. 1227-1309.
82 United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993).
Object Description
| Title | An argument for the criminal hoax |
| Author | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Author email | user1963@yahoo.com; teachpolsci@yahoo.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-20 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Wong, Janelle S. Newland, Chester A. |
| Abstract | Hoaxes are part of the fabric of history. While many provide humor and lighthearted joy, the criminal hoax does not. To date, researchers have included aspects of the criminal hoax in larger academic works. This is an original typology that sets forth the criminal hoax as a distinct part of the larger field of law and public policy. This work provides newly created definitions including four distinct categories of hoaxes: the monetary hoax, the attention getter hoax, the hate crime hoax and the racial hoax. It further illustrates these types with actual detailed accounts of hoaxes and provides insights to each one. It makes policy recommendations concerning the four categories of needs: 1. legislative action, 2. a nationwide statistical database of hoax events, 3. media involvement, and 4. law enforcement training and action to deal with criminal hoaxes. Finally, it recommends further research to identify the causes and motivations of vipers. The ultimate goal of this project is to find ways to eliminate criminal hoaxes. |
| Keyword | criminal hoax; hoax categories |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1659 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Pellegrini-2397 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Pellegrini-2397.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 33 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 27 by clear and convincing evidence.”81 Pickering creates a balancing test between simple false statements and recklessly false statements in the context of public versus private concern. On point here is the conclusion that reckless false statements are not protected speech. A case relevant to whether the use of penalty enhancement is justifiable for hoaxers is United States v. Dunnigan (1993) where the Court held that “upon a proper determination that the accused has committed perjury at trial, a court may enhance the accused’s sentence under section 3C1.1, pp. 5-11.” 82 The Court concluded that a sentence enhancement does not undermine an individual’s right to testify, as he may either testify truthfully or remain silent. A person may not “willfully impede or obstruct or attempt to impede or obstruct the administration of justice during the investigation or prosecution of the instant offense.” The Court’s language appears to suggest that, while a person has constitutional safeguards, lying to the court, impeding an investigation, and misleading law enforcement are not constitutionally protected rights. Specific to this research, one might infer that some judges take the issue of false claims quite seriously. Moreover, penalty enhancement is not only acceptable to, but also supported by the court. The most definitive case in this area may be LaChance v. Erickson, in which Chief Justice Rehnquist writes in the unanimous opinion of the court that: 81 In Pickering (Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563; 88 S. Ct. 1731,) the court determined that “absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, a teacher's exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not have furnished the basis for his dismissal from public employment; and (4) as no such showing had been made, the teacher's rights to freedom of speech were violated.” Nielson, Jr., Howard C., “Recklessly False Statements in the Public-Employment Context,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, Summer 1996, pp. 1227-1309. 82 United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993). |
