首页> 外文OA文献 >True Criminal?: An Analysis and Discussion of the Crimes Committed by Detective Rustin Cohle in Season One of HBO’s Mini-Series True Detective
【2h】

True Criminal?: An Analysis and Discussion of the Crimes Committed by Detective Rustin Cohle in Season One of HBO’s Mini-Series True Detective

机译:真正的刑事?:对HBO迷你系列真侦探第一季侦探Rustin Cohle犯下的罪行的分析和讨论

摘要

The purpose of this Article is to identify and discuss the numerous laws that Cohle broke during the course of the eight episodes – each episode is discussed separately in Sections II through IX. Here, an extremely important point needs to be made – this Article is not intended to pinpoint exactly how many laws that Cohle would likely be convicted of violating; rather, as is the case generally in the legal profession, many of the actual offenses and charges would be subject to prosecutorial discretion and therefore reasonable minds may disagree with the exact charge. To the extent possible, this Article discusses the potential criminal charges that may be brought against Cohle but clearly understands that the actual number and degree may vary greatly, particularly in different jurisdictions and with different prosecutors. To that end, the Article will only tally and calculate potential state law charges but may make reference to some potential federal crimes where applicable. In an effort to keep track of the various charges and potential maximum sentence, the Article will keep the Cohle Crime Count (“CCC”) and Cohle Maximum Sentence Tally (“CMST”) after each potential charge in the footnotes and will assume a potential consecutive sentence. Further, since the show takes place in three distinct time periods, to avoid any confusion, the current statutes will be cited – even though in criminal proceedings the law at the time of the commission of the crime is applicable and no statute of limitations will apply. Additionally, in Sections II, A. and V, A., the Article will briefly address a few of the more critical legal issues raised in the show. For example, it will posit that Cohle’s entire videotaped interview in 2012 – when he was the subject of an investigation similar to the Dora Lange murder from 1995 – would have been admissible in a subsequent proceeding against him, if any, regardless of the fact that he had been drinking alcohol purchased by and provided to him by the investigating detectives, Detective Maynard Gilbough and Detective Thomas Papania. Moreover, if Cohle was actually charged for any crimes while conducting his rogue investigation in Episodes Four and Five, the Article discusses his potential defense of acting in an undercover capacity and concludes such a defense would likely not be successful. By the end, the Article will quantify, with some degree of specificity, Cohle’s statement that, throughout the course of the show, he did in fact do “terrible things” with impunity.
机译:本文的目的是确定和讨论Cohle在八个情节中违反的众多法律-第二至第IX节分别讨论了每个情节。在这里,需要提出一个非常重要的观点–本条款的目的不是要确切指出Cohle可能因违反而被定罪的法律有多少;相反,就像在法律界普遍存在的情况一样,许多实际的犯罪和指控将由检察官酌情决定,因此,有理智的人可能会不同意确切的指控。本条在可能的范围内讨论了可能对Cohle提出的潜在刑事指控,但清楚地了解,实际的数量和程度可能会有很大差异,尤其是在不同的司法管辖区和不同的检察官中。为此,本条仅会计算和计算潜在的州法律指控,但可能在适用时提及某些潜在的联邦罪行。为了跟踪各种指控和可能的最高刑罚,本条将在脚注中的每项潜在指控之后保留“ Cohle犯罪计数”(“ CCC”)和“ Cohle Maximum Sentence Tally”(“ CMST”),并假设连续句子。此外,由于演出是在三个不同的时间段进行的,为了避免引起混淆,将引用当前的法规-即使在刑事诉讼中,适用犯罪时的法律,并且不适用时效法规。此外,在第二节A.和第五节A.中,本文将简要介绍展览中提出的一些更为关键的法律问题。例如,它将假定Cohle在2012年的整个录像采访中(当时他是与1995年Dora Lange谋杀案相似的调查对象)将在随后的针对他的诉讼中被接纳(如果有的话),无论事实是他一直喝着侦探梅纳德·吉尔伯夫侦探和托马斯·帕帕尼亚侦探购买并提供给他的酒。此外,如果科尔在第四集和第五集进行流氓调查时实际上被指控犯有任何罪行,则本文讨论了他以卧底身份行事的潜在辩护,并得出这样的辩护可能不会成功。到最后,《条款》将以某种程度的量化方式量化Cohle的陈述,即在整个演出过程中,他确实做了“可怕的事情”而不受惩罚。

著录项

  • 作者

    Cimino Kevin J.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2016
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号