Inchoate Crimes
Criminal Liability and the Use of Force
LEG 320- Criminal Law
The crime of solicitation is the intent to offer, persuade, or encourage someone to do something in exchange for money or something of value. The crime of solicitation is most commonly thought of as mainly prostitution. There are other ways that solicitation can be referred to as a crime, such as murder and drugs.
The criminal solicitation does not have to be accepted for it to be a crime. The crime of solicitation is called an inchoate crime.
“Inchoate crimes, also called incomplete crimes, make certain acts illegal even though no actual harm 's done. Inchoate crimes serve to punish and deter people from crime. Three main inchoate crime types are: attempt, …show more content…
conspiracy, and solicitation. In order to charge someone with solicitation, the person must have the specific intent to try to induce another person to commit a crime. He must also commit some act to induce the other person, such as using certain key words or phrases specific to the crime. A person can 't be charged with the actual crime solicited and criminal solicitation (Incomplete Crimes: Conspiracy, Attempt & Solicitation - Lawyers.com. 2012)”.
The Times News has an article about a man that had solicited to have his wife and her sister murdered and to burn their home down in 2009. He was found guilty this month of the crime. The jury found him guilty of two counts of solicitation for murder and one for arson, but his mental and physical capacity from a surgery before the crime is questioned so he received a shorter sentence. The sentence was between five and seven years, which he has already served three of those years waiting for the trial (Abernathy, M. 2012).
Solicitation of drugs is witnessed by my high school children all the time. The school is keeping up by having an officer in the school that interacts with the teens, and intervenes when problems arise. There are also unscheduled locker checks with a canine officer. The peer pressure is harder in high school and that makes it harder for teens to do the right thing and turn the drug solicitors in.
The corroboration of witnesses or possibly undercover police officers is important to prove the case for solicitation. “The crime of solicitation must be proved by the testimony of at least two witnesses or by the testimony of one witness and corroborating evidence (441. Solicitation: Elements. 2006)”.
When two or more parties plan to commit a crime this is called a conspiracy. It is different than solicitation in that the parties can be charged with both the conspiracy and the crime.
“Today, many statutes require proof of the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In jurisdictions requiring an overt act, the act need not constitute an attempt to commit the target offense. Instead, any act (and perhaps an omission), no matter how trivial, is sufficient, if performed in pursuance of the conspiracy. A single overt act by any party to a conspiracy is sufficient basis to prosecute every member of the conspiracy, including those who may have joined in the agreement after the act was committed. Most states apply the overt-act rule to all crimes. Model Penal Code of the Overt Act – The Code’s requirement of proof of an overt act only applies to cases involving a misdemeanor or a felony of the third degree (Criminal Law Capsule Summary - Chapter 22. 2012)”.
The case of US v PISTONE, the jury ruled that an overt act was not needed. One of the defendants in the case was working as an informant and was recording all conversations with the dependents. It was decided “that the government is not required to allege and prove an overt act in a prosecution for conspiracy to obstruct commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (FindLaw | Cases and Codes. 2012).” The justification to no overt act required is to prevent harm to others and society, but in reality any act within the conspiracy can be considered overt. When a crime is a federal drug conspiracy, no overt act is needed.
In general the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution safeguards our rights from unreasonable search and seizure.
There must always be probable cause for an officer to search you. The force of police officers is sometimes questioned during an arrest, which is where the fine line between police discretion and our rights differ. The “reasonableness” standard of police force is their judgment at the time of the arrest and the substantive due process prohibits our rights from being violated from the police or any federal agency. If law enforcement used the substantive approach to crime there would be no allowance for discretion and every person would have the same …show more content…
punishment.
When defending your empty property you are only allowed to threaten or use non-deadly force, this rule changes if you or other occupants are on the property. The Castle Doctrine gives you the right to defend yourself in your home with the most reasonable force needed. This does not give you the right to use deadly force on an intruder that has not harmed you or your family. An obscenely named rule named the “Make My Day Rule” makes any amount of deadly force permissible to the homeowner, and has recently expanded to businesses in some states. This is vigilantism and should not be allowed, reasonable force is sufficient. To shoot first and ask later as a law seems to be extreme, there can be many cases when this should not be allowed.
Any type of violent act that is used against any person that is of unreasonable nature should be labeled as a criminal act.
References
Incomplete Crimes: Conspiracy, Attempt & Solicitation - Lawyers.com.
(2012.). Criminal Attorney Lawyers - Legal Information - Lawyers.com. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Incomplete-Crimes-Conspiracy-Attempt-Solicitation.html
441. Solicitation: Elements. (2006, January 1). Criminal Law. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/400/441.html
Abernathy, M. (2012, April 26). Man found guilty of soliciting murder of wife, sister-in-law | sister, soliciting, graham - Burlington Times News. Burlington Times News. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/sister-54766-soliciting-graham.html
Criminal Law Capsule Summary - Chapter 22. 2012). Business Solutions & Software for Legal, Education and Government | LexisNexis. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim22.htm
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. (2012). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/982519man.html
APA formatting by
BibMe.org.
LEG 320- Criminal Law
The crime of solicitation is the intent to offer, persuade, or encourage someone to do something in exchange for money or something of value. The crime of solicitation is most commonly thought of as mainly prostitution. There are other ways that solicitation can be referred to as a crime, such as murder and drugs.
The criminal solicitation does not have to be accepted for it to be a crime. The crime of solicitation is called an inchoate crime.
“Inchoate crimes, also called incomplete crimes, make certain acts illegal even though no actual harm 's done. Inchoate crimes serve to punish and deter people from crime. Three main inchoate crime types are: attempt, …show more content…
conspiracy, and solicitation. In order to charge someone with solicitation, the person must have the specific intent to try to induce another person to commit a crime. He must also commit some act to induce the other person, such as using certain key words or phrases specific to the crime. A person can 't be charged with the actual crime solicited and criminal solicitation (Incomplete Crimes: Conspiracy, Attempt & Solicitation - Lawyers.com. 2012)”.
The Times News has an article about a man that had solicited to have his wife and her sister murdered and to burn their home down in 2009. He was found guilty this month of the crime. The jury found him guilty of two counts of solicitation for murder and one for arson, but his mental and physical capacity from a surgery before the crime is questioned so he received a shorter sentence. The sentence was between five and seven years, which he has already served three of those years waiting for the trial (Abernathy, M. 2012).
Solicitation of drugs is witnessed by my high school children all the time. The school is keeping up by having an officer in the school that interacts with the teens, and intervenes when problems arise. There are also unscheduled locker checks with a canine officer. The peer pressure is harder in high school and that makes it harder for teens to do the right thing and turn the drug solicitors in.
The corroboration of witnesses or possibly undercover police officers is important to prove the case for solicitation. “The crime of solicitation must be proved by the testimony of at least two witnesses or by the testimony of one witness and corroborating evidence (441. Solicitation: Elements. 2006)”.
When two or more parties plan to commit a crime this is called a conspiracy. It is different than solicitation in that the parties can be charged with both the conspiracy and the crime.
“Today, many statutes require proof of the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In jurisdictions requiring an overt act, the act need not constitute an attempt to commit the target offense. Instead, any act (and perhaps an omission), no matter how trivial, is sufficient, if performed in pursuance of the conspiracy. A single overt act by any party to a conspiracy is sufficient basis to prosecute every member of the conspiracy, including those who may have joined in the agreement after the act was committed. Most states apply the overt-act rule to all crimes. Model Penal Code of the Overt Act – The Code’s requirement of proof of an overt act only applies to cases involving a misdemeanor or a felony of the third degree (Criminal Law Capsule Summary - Chapter 22. 2012)”.
The case of US v PISTONE, the jury ruled that an overt act was not needed. One of the defendants in the case was working as an informant and was recording all conversations with the dependents. It was decided “that the government is not required to allege and prove an overt act in a prosecution for conspiracy to obstruct commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (FindLaw | Cases and Codes. 2012).” The justification to no overt act required is to prevent harm to others and society, but in reality any act within the conspiracy can be considered overt. When a crime is a federal drug conspiracy, no overt act is needed.
In general the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution safeguards our rights from unreasonable search and seizure.
There must always be probable cause for an officer to search you. The force of police officers is sometimes questioned during an arrest, which is where the fine line between police discretion and our rights differ. The “reasonableness” standard of police force is their judgment at the time of the arrest and the substantive due process prohibits our rights from being violated from the police or any federal agency. If law enforcement used the substantive approach to crime there would be no allowance for discretion and every person would have the same …show more content…
punishment.
When defending your empty property you are only allowed to threaten or use non-deadly force, this rule changes if you or other occupants are on the property. The Castle Doctrine gives you the right to defend yourself in your home with the most reasonable force needed. This does not give you the right to use deadly force on an intruder that has not harmed you or your family. An obscenely named rule named the “Make My Day Rule” makes any amount of deadly force permissible to the homeowner, and has recently expanded to businesses in some states. This is vigilantism and should not be allowed, reasonable force is sufficient. To shoot first and ask later as a law seems to be extreme, there can be many cases when this should not be allowed.
Any type of violent act that is used against any person that is of unreasonable nature should be labeled as a criminal act.
References
Incomplete Crimes: Conspiracy, Attempt & Solicitation - Lawyers.com.
(2012.). Criminal Attorney Lawyers - Legal Information - Lawyers.com. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Incomplete-Crimes-Conspiracy-Attempt-Solicitation.html
441. Solicitation: Elements. (2006, January 1). Criminal Law. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/400/441.html
Abernathy, M. (2012, April 26). Man found guilty of soliciting murder of wife, sister-in-law | sister, soliciting, graham - Burlington Times News. Burlington Times News. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/sister-54766-soliciting-graham.html
Criminal Law Capsule Summary - Chapter 22. 2012). Business Solutions & Software for Legal, Education and Government | LexisNexis. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim22.htm
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. (2012). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/982519man.html
APA formatting by
BibMe.org.