Page 34 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 34 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
28
neither the Civil Service Reform Act, nor the due process clause of the Federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment precludes a federal agency from taking adverse action against an employee for making false statements in response to an underlying charge of employment-related misconduct. 83
The court relies in part on Bryson v United States, 396 U.S. 64, which states “that a citizen may decline to answer a Government question, or answer it honestly, but cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer it with a falsehood.” This case is germane insofar as the court held that there is no violation of an individual’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in charging an individual with making false statements in addition to an underlying charge. This analysis appears to support the idea that a person could be charged with making a false statement in addition to other charges such as fraud. This case is key to the proposition that new legislation should be adopted providing for appropriately harsher sentences.
These cases reflect a trend in the legal system that supports the enactment of legislation covering criminal hoaxes. The courts have shown little tolerance for knowingly making false statements and evidently provide no protection under the Fifth Amendment for intentionally providing false information. Further, the courts continue to approve of the use of penalty enhancements for cases where an additional harmful act is associated with the underlying crime.84
People could be bound together by mistrust and even hatred as they are by love and trust. If people in society abuse each other’s trust and expect others to do the same to them, most people will interact in accordance with these
83 LaChance v. Erickson, 522 US 262.
84 One example is the use of penalty enhancements for hate crimes, or for special circumstance murder cases. The underlying criminal act is subject to a penalty which can be extended when additional criminal elements are present.
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 34 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 28 neither the Civil Service Reform Act, nor the due process clause of the Federal Constitution’s Fifth Amendment precludes a federal agency from taking adverse action against an employee for making false statements in response to an underlying charge of employment-related misconduct. 83 The court relies in part on Bryson v United States, 396 U.S. 64, which states “that a citizen may decline to answer a Government question, or answer it honestly, but cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer it with a falsehood.” This case is germane insofar as the court held that there is no violation of an individual’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in charging an individual with making false statements in addition to an underlying charge. This analysis appears to support the idea that a person could be charged with making a false statement in addition to other charges such as fraud. This case is key to the proposition that new legislation should be adopted providing for appropriately harsher sentences. These cases reflect a trend in the legal system that supports the enactment of legislation covering criminal hoaxes. The courts have shown little tolerance for knowingly making false statements and evidently provide no protection under the Fifth Amendment for intentionally providing false information. Further, the courts continue to approve of the use of penalty enhancements for cases where an additional harmful act is associated with the underlying crime.84 People could be bound together by mistrust and even hatred as they are by love and trust. If people in society abuse each other’s trust and expect others to do the same to them, most people will interact in accordance with these 83 LaChance v. Erickson, 522 US 262. 84 One example is the use of penalty enhancements for hate crimes, or for special circumstance murder cases. The underlying criminal act is subject to a penalty which can be extended when additional criminal elements are present. |
