Adriana Criminal Style


 Are There Different Paper Shredding Regulations Around the World? Fraud, identity theft, forgery, white collar crimes and information security breaches are a common occurrence in today's information world. Today, every business that has sensitive and classified documents should use the services of a document destruction company to safely and securely permanently destroy their documents. Because of the potential security breaches, governments in many countries have instituted paper shredding regulations that a business must follow. For instance, the US has the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act. These types of paper shredding regulations are designed to protect consumers, employees of companies, and the companies and organizations themselves. They require that companies permanently destroy sensitive documents and implement policies that minimize the risk of sensitive and confidential data from falling into the hands of criminals. When organizations do not comply with the regulations, it can result in such penalties as class-action lawsuits and federal and state fines.

R v Campbell is one of the few cases in North America to exclude rap lyrics as evidence of guilt in criminal cases. Unlike in Canada, the issue of criminalizing rap has received considerable attention in the United States. This article begins by documenting the Canadian experience. It is a response to the call for research by two leading American scholars on the phenomenon of putting rap on trial, Professors Charis Kubrin and Erik Nielson. After documenting and discussing 36 Canadian cases, the article examines the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Simard and the two leading trial decisions R v Campbell and R v Williams. Generally speaking, the Canadian cases have failed to apply a culturally competent lens when assessing probative value and, to address the relevance of race and bias, when assessing prejudicial effect. The article urges our courts to put the rap back in rap by taking a culturally competent and critical race approach to admissibility.

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Liability

Best Appellate Law Firm