Juvenile Liability in Inchoate Offenses, Essay Example

No crime can be committed by thought alone. Mere thoughts must be distinguished from speech acts.  Otherwise sufficient evidence for criminal liability may consist of nothing more than the movement of the tongue so as to form spoken words. Yet some crimes are committed by the act of speech, such as perjury and false pretenses and the inchoate crimes of conspiracy and solicitation. Criminal liability for inchoate offenses is ‘fair’ given the fact that court decision is complicated by a number of restrictions pertaining to evidence and proof of commission of those crimes ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The very nature of inchoate crimes as ‘attempt,’ ‘agreement or solicitation’ to commit a crime, and including ‘conspiracy’ makes even target offense(s) difficult to prove without substantial and exacting evidence. As most states in the United States currently use the Modern Penal Code (MPC), rather than Common Law or Civil Law (Louisiana), the actus reus (i.e. act) and mens rea (i.e. mental state) must both be present in complaint against the defendant, and the elements of act and intent respectively precise in determination.

Due to the fact that the number of states adopting the MPC increases each year, there is little rationale for addressing queries into inchoate crimes as ‘legislative’ in most cases, and mere reliance upon application of statutory code is adequate. Like all criminal laws, almost without exception, mens rea must be present in order to sustain a conviction.  According to the MPC, the defendant must have exhibited one of the four (4) mental states: 1) Purposely; 2) Knowingly; 3) Recklessly; or 4) Negligently (rarely gives rise to liability under modern penal code, but included for those cases) at the time the crime was commissioned. All crimes require pre-target offense activity or “planned to culminate in the commission of a crime” [MPC 501.1c] – and includes  reckless conduct (e.g., throwing rock from building). As discussed later in the essay, minors present a special case in regard to the constitutionality of inchoate crimes as it pertains to juvenile defendants; and in response to ‘consent’ in cases where the defendant’s decision making is mitigated by force, or is simply underage.

Unlike Common Law criminal statute, where the defendant’s behavior in close proximity to the offense of the completed crime (i.e. very near to target crime), the MPC 501.1c stipulates that the prosecutor must est. a substantial step toward the target offense. The main distinction is that the rule begins earlier in activity. Defenses to inchoate crimes are temporal, and shift defendant liability from charge, to witness if there is evidence of intent to abandon the act.  According to MPC 505.02 courts can dismiss charges if the court finds both 1) Impossibility; and 2) Defendant presents no danger to the public. In the case of attempt, the defendant cannot be convicted for both Attempt and Target Offense. If substantial crime cannot be found, attempt may be pursued.

The requirements for the crime of conspiracy  which include: 1) an agreement of 2 or more people to do an unlawful act, and 2) an additional, minimum overt act in furtherance of the agreement, we see the formula Knowledge + Purpose (Stake in Venture). A specific intent to have that crime committed necessary, even if a related target offense was not completed (and required greater or culpable MS, the greater MS would have to be shown).  If no further stake is shown to be present, the defendant is automatically not guilty of conspiracy. While circumstantial evidence not typically allowed in the courtroom, is in fact allowed in such cases where confession is elicited from one or more defendants. Additional rules to conspiracy include:

1. Pinkerton Rule – Co-conspirators are liable not only for agreement, but all activity in furtherance of agreement;
2. Object of Offense – Most jurisdictions’ now require the object of the conspiracy to be a criminal felony offense;
3. Chain of Offense – a) Number of persons; and involving b) How many Agreements (series); and c) Acts.

Finally, the crime of conspiracy is subject to ‘selective trial;’ whereby the state can select the jurisdiction that trial takes place, in any location that one of the co-defendants should be charged.

Convictions of defendants based on the crime of solicitation is rare, and is broadly defined as “the requesting another to commit any offense,” and would generally make solicitation punishable to the same degree as authorized for the offense solicited. The theory is that “to the extent that sentencing depends upon the anti-social disposition of the actor and the demonstrated need for corrective sanction. There is likely to be little difference in the gravity of the required measures depending on the consummation or the failure of the plan. Solicitation is typically merged with the target crime, prosecuted under accomplice liability, and is a misdemeanor on its own in most states.

The aforementioned argument directed at inchoate offenses outlines the near and proximate measures used in application of the MPC to the crimes of attempt, conspiracy and solicitation are fair. Interpretation of liability in juvenile justice is often based upon the age of the youth and varies state to state. Most juveniles that are fourteen years of age typically do not meet the requirements for mental state, and therefore are not found guilty of such acts due to lack of capacity to form agreement to such ‘thought,’ as in the planning of conspiratorial crime. When tried as an adult for a felony target offense, the consideration of the secondary offenses follows. Additional rules influence adjudication of such offenses may interpret the situation according to ‘choice of evils,’  ‘duress’ (i.e. threat), or self-defense.

References

La Fave, W.R. (2006). Modern Criminal Law, Fourth Edition. New York: West Publisher.