Describing what law you would change or eliminate in the CA Penal Code

Posted: December 31st, 2022

Write a three page paper, double spaced, describing what law you would change or eliminate in the CA Penal Code. The second part of the paper requires that you create a new law. The law that you create can not be currently listed in the CA Penal Code, Municipal Code, Vehicle Code, etc. You are acting as the legislator. Think about what law you believe should be implemented and describe it. Make sure you incorporate the elements of the crime and penalty for violating the crime, that you established. 12 point font, 1/2″ margins.

Make sure you cite your sources.
3 Full Pages
CA Penal Code
Many countries have an outlined code of laws concerning various types of crimes, especially those not given much attention. The penal code includes the kinds of laws codes for certain offenses, including their punishment. Some of the countries with criminal codes include the United States, California, and Indonesia. Penal codes have brought about a vast change in the justice system by promoting human rights through discouraging discrimination, such as protecting bisexual against torture according to (Love, Margaret Colgate, page 30-31). Although some laws need to be eliminated from the CA penal code. The paper describes what law I can remove from CA criminal code, and why as well as the law I believe should be established.
“Lynching” law is a type of law that I would eliminate from the California penal code because, according to me, lynching is understated and used wrongly according to penal code 455a (Park, Linette, page 674-698). According to California, Lynching is removing a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer employing a riot where a riot, in this case, means by use of force.
Lynching is used to describe an act of killing someone by use of fatal violence from a mob involving biting, hanging people, burning driven by anger and hate. The whites terrorized black America through Lynching back in the days, which was an act of social and racial control. The mob was involved in this act where the blacks were taken through harsh physical termination and later hanged on trees and left to die. Lynching also took place in courts where the mob was instructed to kill black suspects before trial.
According to Black American Lynching in California does not provide its actual meaning, and the law should change the name or use it for its true definition. A person who takes a person from the lawful custody of a peace officer through rioting has committed a felony. Riot is the use of force or threatening to use power and disturbing public peace, according to California.
A person accused of Lynching in Californian is charged with rescuing a criminal from lawful custody, resisting arrest, inciting and rioting, unlawful assembly, and many more (Park, Linette, page 674-698). On efforts to change the word lynching in the penal code, a black American activist during “black lives matter” rally was charged with lynching, which was unfair because the rally was more of a peaceful protest.
I believe law against public recording, should be established. The government is more interested in the audio recording that video recording, where both affect the privacy. Video recording has led to embarrassing scenarios, especially in family disagreements, accidents, mob lynching, and so on. When a video is taken, it goes viral within a short time through social media sharing (King et al., page 1 -22). Video recording happens every day where most of the time, we are recorded more than fifty times a day, which deprives the public from personal privacy.
Video recording going viral has affected most people in California, where embracing scenarios have led to victim’s mental issues from psychological effects, ending up committing suicide or going into a state of depression. Video and audio recording is a sensitive type of law that I have considered in the CA penal code in fighting for individual privacy and respect for human rights, especially with the increased risk of cyber-crimes. The public should not be allowed to record everything, especially confidential information, when the parties intended the information to remain confidential.
Anyone caught recording aimlessly in private should be charged with felony, sentenced or fined according to the court’s decision. A public recording is a type of ethics violation, and criminal and administrative penalties should be administered (Richards et al., page 98). A person caught recording a private conversation is answerable and should be accused of violation of public trust. In the case of a liked video, the primary source is traced and offender charged for thousands of dollars and three years in jail if prove guilty. What is a crime? Recording any communication without the consent of the parties communicating. For instance, confidential meetings.
Recording in public without specified intention. Capturing people’s faces, cars, and assets and posting them on social media. People respect privacy; therefore, posting faces and properties belonging to people may affect their security, for instance, trigger a criminal activity. What is not a crime? Recording an event involving sexual assault which is be done by the assaulted person. The records are used as pieces of evidence in the court of law. Recording any video or conversation but with consent from the parties. Any act of violence from unexpected persons, for instance, registering a police officer harassing or asking for a bribe.
Penal codes are used to determine criminal acts primarily acts affecting human rights and freedom, especially those involved with discrimination of gender or sex. Californian have several outlined CA penal codes, including the law of “lynching.” According to California, the law lynching is removing a person from the lawful custody of peaceful police by use of violence, which is contrary different according to black Americans on the meaning of lynching.
Lynching law should be eliminated because it is an understatement of the term, as well as most of innocent individual, end up in jail accused of lynching. The public recording is the new law I would initiate in the CA penal code because it has been an issue of concern that has led to the violation of public trust and privacy. The public recording should be charged with three years in jail and a fine of thousand dollars.
In California, changes to the Penal Code can be proposed through the legislative process. This involves the introduction of a bill by a member of the state legislature, which is then considered by committees and debated by the full legislature. If the bill is approved by a majority of the legislature, it becomes a law.

There are many factors that may be taken into account when evaluating the need for changes to the Penal Code. These may include the effectiveness of current laws in addressing certain issues, the potential impact of the changes on public safety and the criminal justice system, and the potential costs and benefits of the changes. In addition, changes to the Penal Code may be considered in the context of broader policy goals, such as promoting fairness and justice, protecting the rights of individuals, and addressing social and economic issues.

It is important to approach the question of changing or eliminating laws with care and consideration, as such decisions can have significant consequences for society. It is also important to ensure that any changes to the law are based on sound evidence and are consistent with the principles of justice and fairness.

Work Cited
King, Stephen M., Elijah Agyapong, and Gary Roberts. “ASPA code of ethics as a framework for teaching ethics in public affairs and administration: a conceptual content analysis of MPA ethics course syllabi.” Journal of Public Affairs Education (2019): 1-22.
Love, Margaret Colgate. “Starting over with a clean slate: In praise of a forgotten section of the model penal code.” Fordham Urb. LJ 30.
Park, Linette. “The Eternal Captive in Contemporary” Lynching” Arrests: On the Uncanny and the Complex of Law’s Perversion.” Theory & Event 22.3 (2019): 674-698.
Richards, Neil M., and Daniel J. Solove. “Prosser’s privacy law: A mixed legacy.” Calif. L. Rev. 98.

.