There are many who believe that the crimes portrayed in books can inspire real-life criminals to perpetrate the crime. In some cases the link is very slender, while in others criminals have confessed to using ideas that they read about in murder mysteries.
A book entitled Nena Sahib, which was published in 1859 and penned by Herman O.F. Goedsche under the pen name of Sir-John-Retcliffe, is said to have inspired a man named Conrad. The book’s plot was based on a locked room and Conrad used the plot to mask the killing of his wife and children in 1881. However, his crime was unearthed by the Berlin police and he was hanged for it.
Then there is the case of Michael Norman, who was a blackmailer. During his trial in 1994, Norman claimed that he got ideas to blackmail people from a Dick Francis book entitled Banker.
However, the most interesting is the case where Australian-novelist Arthur W. Upfield, was called upon to give evidence in 1932 in a murder trial. The accused was John-Thomas-Smith, also referred to as Snowy Rowles. During the trial, it was claimed that Smith got the idea of disposing the bodies of his victims without a trace by listening to conversations Upfield and his friends had about a book plot. The book was published in 1931 and was entitled The Sands of Windee.
The debate about murder mysteries influencing and inspiring real-life criminals is ongoing. And, many critics feel that novelists and authors have moral responsibility for their work. Novelists, such as Catherine Aird, ensure that their books do not provide assistance to criminals. In fact, according to Catherine Aird, the convincing poisonous concoction that she describes in her book cannot actually kill anyone in real life. This should give people some peace of mind.
With same sex marriage legal in the US, many couples still want to experience life as straight couples thus would still want to have a child to take care of. Such couples have an option to either adopt a child or have one of them sire a baby through a sperm donor. If the couple settles to adopt a child, there are certain legal procedures that would make them succeed in the process.
To start with, whenever you adopt any kid as same sex couple, the law assumes that one of you is the biological parent to the child. This can be a tough decision to make especially since this means the other “parent” has no right over the child. No one would really want to be in a situation where they have no say over the child they have worked hard to bring up. As a couple, you must decide on who will be the child’s legal mother, which is often a very difficult decision since the “cut off” provision in second parent adoption services often exists.
A second parent adoption is meant to give your partner parentage rights over the child even if they are not the legal or biological parents to the child. If one of the partners is the biological parent to the child, having the other parent have the same privileges would server the parental relationship between the child and biological parent if proper parentage laws are not followed.
To lift the cut off provision, the parents can opt for simultaneous adoption services to maintain the legal relationship between the biological parent and the child through consent by the adoptive parent that they wish to retain that relationship. This means children in same sex marriages can thus be able to inherit property from both parents.
The law requires an employer to withhold wages of a non-custodial parent and have them remitted to the custodial parent towards child support. This is aimed at making sure that the non-custodial parent does not fail to honor his or her obligations promptly. In other incidents, when a person has failed to honor their debt obligations, the lender may resort to using the court to have a debtor’s wages assigned in a manner that guarantees that all outstanding dues are paid. Someone may ask whether their labor union would have any say towards such remittances in California.
Under the Labor Code Private Attorneys Act, 2004 (Labor Code Sec 2699) and under the unfair competition Law (Business and professions code sec 17203), a union has limited capacity to sue on behalf of an aggrieved party on matters involving the person’s statutory right. The Union can thus not sue at a representative capacity to have a wage assignment fixed at a certain figure whether the union member is the custodial parent/lender seeking child support/ debt settlement or the non-custodial parent/ debtor who wants to have the figure set at a reasonable level.
Although a union member has a right to sue for issues related to wage assignment, the power to transfer that right to a third party is only given to a legislative body. This means a union member cannot transfer their right of cause of action to the union. A union should therefore obtain authorization from a legislative body to represent its employee(s) in any course of action. This allows the union to use its collective bargaining ability to influence the decision of the courts with respect to a wage assignment case. The union however cannot transfer its right to cause of action to a third party, who is an employee.