Test for Criminal Damage (Recklessness against Intention)?
831029
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 is still good law.  Recklessness was only one limb of it. The first limb remains the deliberate damaging of property belonging to another and recklessness is the alternative to cover cases where a defendant could argue that he didn't commit the damage deliberately, never having applied his mind to the consequences (being, for example, drunk or drugged. \n\nR v Caldwell applied a highly subjective test to the whole notion of recklessness, the judge having directed the jury to look at the situation not from the point of view of the reasonable man (an adult), but from the point of view of a reasonable child, the defendants in the case being children.  The House of Lords disapproved the ratio of R v.Caldwell in  the 2003 case of R v. G and another.\n\nThe test of recklessness now is: “A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to - (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.” \n\nWhich of the many cases known as R v D are you referring to here?  I'm afraid I was unable to trace anything relevant.
613381
If he displays any signs of damaging behavior, some jurisdictions you can get a judge to have him tested against his will.
962701
Well, what you're calling assault sounds like it might be battery.  \n\nAssault is the attempt, and failure, to commit battery.\n\nBattery is a successful assault.\n\nBoth are misdemeanors, which means you COULD do six months to a year (depending on the type of battery and who it was against), and you COULD get a fine of up to $1,000.
905897
The site below gives a fairly detailed outline of what is tested, I hope its of some use...;
368475
It depends on the intent when the crime was committed. Ex. Murder one is premeditated with malicious intent.
807270
Nightman1 has the right concept, but:\n\nYou need to go to the Court where the crime was prosecuted.\nThe petition (or motion) may vary from place to place.\nThe fee will vary from place to place.\nThe time required for it to happen will vary.\nAnd, just because you ask does not GUARANTEE they will do it.\n\nBut, I think you have a good shot, so good luck!!
155170
Try www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/testing
820228
wrongdoings and mistakes are categorical. it may be wrong in one perspective but may be right in another. even in the courts of law criminals are determined to be guilty or not. \nhowever, in both instances, "wrong" and "mistake" are decisions made. one decides to his/her best ability that the action to be done is the right one. it is now those who are to be affected by this action who will decide if it is right or wrong, correct or a mistake. \nyour choice to an answer in a test is always your best answer.committing murder may also be the best solution to the criminal.
938158
Get a test and prove it.
587340
go here good luck\nhttp://www.criminaldefenseassociates.com/?referrer=google-federalnew
403716
1) duty\n2) breach\n3)causation (actual and proximate)\n4)damages \nyou must meet all four elements for a negligence cause of action.
292255
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=law+of+negligence
747361
If a person is charged with assault with indent to commit great bodily harm it depends on the circumstances under which the assault took place as to whether it's a first, second or third degree felony. If the attacking person was doing so to protect himself or someone with him the chances of it being made a misdemeanor are very good, or even having the case dismissed as self defense, if not, he's looking at a felony. I truly hope all goes well for your BIL.
176827
Get a criminal report on that person
716733
Polygraph tests are NOT admissible.  This is due to the fact, no evidence can be provided to support the responses.  Ive myself have seen where people have been found Innocent, even when the test result showed they probably have committed the offence.  The key word "probably"  would not stand up in a criminal court of law... you have to prove your case "beyond reasonable doubt".
237146
Look at the elements of murder:\nMens Rea (intent, motive)\n(1) Purposely - Express purpose to commit a specific crime against a particular person\n\n(2) Knowingly - Knowledge that one's actions would certainly result in a crime against someone, but did not specifically intend to commit that crime against the particular victim which one is accused of injuring\n\n(3) Recklessly - Knew that one's actions had an unjustifiable risk of leading to a certain result, but did not care about that risk ("reckless disregard"), and acted anyway \n\n(4) Negligently - Did not intend to cause the result that happened, but failed to exercise a reasonable duty of care to prevent that result (which includes failing to become aware of the risk of that result) \n\nActus Reus -- the intended act of taking a life.\n\nTrials must PROVE both parts:  beyond reasonable doubt, did Brutus take Caesar's life intentionally?  If there's any doubt or if Brutus was justified, the murder was unintentional, or if Brutus was not present, then no.
737158
It is called accessory to the crime\nyou are seen in the eyes of the law as being a willing participant in the act---cut and dry !!  Sorry !!