Question.3263 - 1. Why is it necessary to require a "substantial step" before mere plans become a criminal attempt? 2. Why are courts hesitant to punish a person for "evil thoughts" alone? 3. What is the difference between conspiracy and criminal solicitation? 4. Why is is easier for prosecutors to build a case when they are not required to establish whether the defendant is a principal in the first degree, a principal in the second degree, or an accomplice? 5. When is a corporation liable for the acts of its officers? 6. Under the statues of many states, a bar owner is criminally liable when an employee-bartender sells liquor to a juvenile. What if the bar owner instructs the bartender not to sell liquor to juveniles, but the bartender disregards those instructions and sells to juveniles anyway? Should the owner be held criminally liable? Why or why not? 7. Should vicarious criminal liability exist? What are the implications of holding a corporation liable for the actions of its employees? What about holding parents responsible for the actions of their children? Who benefits from such liability, and who can be harmed by it?
Answer Below:
1. Why is it necessary to require a "substantial step" before mere plans become a criminal attempt? A Criminal attempt occurs when a person does a specific act or takes a substantial step towards performing any offence. Mere thinking of doing a crime does not describe it as a criminal act. It needs a specific step towards commission of the crime to prove an actual intent to commit a crime. The Criminal attempt is a specific- intent crime having two essential elements- ? Specific intent to commit criminal offence ? Substantial step towards commission of intended offense. Criminal attempt can be of two types complete but imperfect and incomplete. Complete but imperfect criminal attempt refers to the situation when person perform all acts and deeds regarding crime but does not attain his criminal goal while on the other hand incomplete attempt refers to the situation where he is not able to perform what he thought. Thus Substantial step is very important to prove a criminal attempt and mere planning does not state that a crime is occurred. 2. Why are courts hesitant to punish a person for "evil thoughts" alone? Evil thoughts alone are not liable to punish as they do not prove any crime. It is impossible for anyone to understand what one person is thinking and to judge whether they are evil thoughts and prove them a crime merely on these thoughts. If “Evil Thoughts” are further performed thus involving a substantial step apart from mere planning then it will be liable for criminal proceeding. Generally only actions are covered by laws and not the thoughts of any person. Guilty minds are never ever stated as crimes till the time they are accompanied with guilty act. For e.g. if a person thinks of murdering his neighbour does not prove it as crime and cannot be punished till the time he takes a substantial step in murdering his neighbour. Thus evil thoughts cannot be punished alone. 3. What is the difference between conspiracy and criminal solicitation? Conspiracy means when multiple persons agreed upon an agreement to commit a crime and take steps towards the commission of crime or move the crime forward. On the other hand criminal solicitation refers to the situation where someone is hired to commit the crime. It encourages any individual to perform an act towards crime. There is very thin line between conspiracy and Solicitation. Solicitation comes before the conspiracy. When u asks someone to commit a crime criminal solicitation is committed. Till the time person has not accepted your offer it is a solicitation but as soon as he said yes to your offer it is referred to conspiracy. 4. Why is easier for prosecutors to build a case when they are not required to establish whether the defendant is a principal in the first degree, a principal in the second degree, or an accomplice? Principal in the first degree refers to the main person who is involved in the crime. Principal in the second degree refers to the person who assists or helps principle in the first degree in committing the crime and is presented at the time and place of crime. Accomplice is an active partner in crime but is not involved in actual crime offense. It is easy for any prosecutor to build a case when they are not required to establish whether the defendant is a principal in the first degree, a principal in the second degree, or an accomplice because for each and every one the legal proceedings and criminal liability is different and when prosecutor does not need any differentiation in person crime it becomes easy for them to just prove it a criminal and its criminal liability. 5. When is a corporation liable for the acts of its officers? Officers of any organisation generally are not personally liable for any act. They work on behalf of the company and act as representative of the companies. Therefore a corporation is solely liable for the acts of its officers. Corporation is not liable in the case where officer work outside the scope of his duty. Laws are made which govern corporations including the corporation’s liability for acts of its officers. Some cases where corporation is liable for acts of its officers- ? Civil liability- In this if officer is engaged in physical or financial damage to the third party then corporate is liable to pay money to the plaintiff but if this damage is done due to officer’s negligence or fraud then officer is personally liable for that. ? Criminal Liability – In this corporate is liable for any criminal liability if its officer has offended the rules and has committed crime while performing duties of its corporation but it should be clearly proven out that crime took place while officer was at work and was performing its duty. ? Sarbanes-Oxley Act Violations – This act is formed to save the interest of all the shareholders, customers, suppliers, stakeholders and every person having interest in the affairs of the company. It consist several procedures to ensure that the company issuing the reports are true and are not misleading that effect the investing decisions of its investors. Thus any violation of this act or its rules by officers of corporation leads to liability. 6. Under the statues of many states, a bar owner is criminally liable when an employee- bartender sells liquor to a juvenile. What if the bar owner instructs the bartender not to sell liquor to juveniles, but the bartender disregards those instructions and sells to juveniles anyway? Should the owner be held criminally liable? Why or why not? If a bar servers liquor to a juvenile, bar owner, operator and employee all are liable to offence leading to imprisonment, fine or both. It can also lead to the cancellation of bar licence. Bar owner is liable for all activities performed by his employees in the course of their employment at the working place. These types of cases come under vicarious liability where one person is held liable for the act done by other and mainly is occurred in principle and agent relationship. In this it is a case of liability without fault but then also it is done by employee in the course of the employment therefor bar owner will held liable for the offence done by the employee to the extent of fine and possibly imprisonment. 7. Should vicarious criminal liability exist? What are the implications of holding a corporation liable for the actions of its employees? What about holding parents responsible for the actions of their children? Who benefits from such liability, and who can be harmed by it? Vicarious criminal liability refers to the liability where one person is responsible for the negligence or offence occurred by the other person. For example when any agency relationship exists in that case principle is responsible for any offence by his agent in the period of employment. Corporation is liable for the actions of his employees if offence is committed in the course of employment. Corporation is not liable in the case where officer work outside the scope of his duty. Employees are representative of any corporation and therefore are not personally liable for any offence under the scope of employment. If employee is engaged in physical or financial damage to the third party then corporate is liable to pay money to the plaintiff but if this damage is done due to officer’s negligence or fraud then officer is personally liable for that. If employee has offended the rules and has committed crime while performing duties of its corporation but it should be clearly proven out that crime took place while officer was at work and was performing its duty. Parents are also held responsible for the act of their children to some extent. If any financial loss is done by the children it the duty of parents to fill that financial liability. It is duty and responsibility of the parents to look what their children are up to. If they are involving in some criminal activity or wrong deeds parents should take care to avoid involving in these activities. Parents are held responsible till the limit of civil liabilities and financial liabilities but not very much towards criminal liabilities involving imprisonment It is not like that who benefit from it or harmed by it but it is merely a transfer of liabilities to other for the offences done by self thus we can say that many times it could be benefiting self and harming other.More Articles From CRIMINAL LAW MANAGEMENT
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
