Legal Concepts, Research Paper Example

Since people have begun to live together, crime has been a feature of human life. Behavior that is now considered to be illegal has occurred and has been documented for thousands of years; societies determine which behaviors are unacceptable and should be punished, and what those consequences should be. All societies have developed criminal conduct codes, which regulate human behavior and tell people what they are permitted to do (Anderson, 2011.) This paper will discuss different crimes, elements and conditions under which they are defined, and what responses by law enforcement or average citizens are acceptable in situations where such behaviors occur.

Solicitation, also called incitement, is a term that is used to describe when a person tries to convince another person to commit a crime that the solicitor desires and is intent on having committed (Kahan, 2002.) At times, this sort of behavior involves a specific substantial crime such as, for example, offering a bribe, committing perjury, or promoting the overthrow of a government. The justification for solicitation being considered a crime is that purposeful suggestions that another person commit a crime presents a threat that requires preventive action, and results in enough harm to justify criminal liability. The case can be made against the criminalization of these actions because of the lack of certainty that the crime will actually be committed, either because the person who solicits the crime has been unwilling to commit the crime him or herself but instead, has put someone else between him and the potential criminal action. For some, the suggestion is that the act of soliciting someone else to commit a crime removes that person from presenting any actual harm or danger; therefore, it is felt, there is not enough justification for criminal sanction.

In some states, in order to ensure that imposing a criminal punishment for solicitation is justified, a requirement of corroboration is imposed. Essentially, the concept of corroboration requires that the state substantiate its charge by introducing extrinsic evidence that supports the solicitor’s intent to promote criminal activity (Kahan, 2002.) This can be accomplished by requiring that one or two witnesses confirm the circumstances of the solicitation. Several states require that the corroboration must be accomplished by providing clear and convincing evidence; other states demand that the person who is being approached to commit the crime can be held accountable by committing an overt act in pursuing the desired crime.

Another crime, conspiracy, requires evidence of an overt act by one of the co-conspirators in some cases. A conspiracy must entail three elements: an agreement about the purpose of the conspiracy; specific intent to accomplish that purpose; and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement (Overt Act, 2010.) The definition of an overt act is an outward act that is performed when pursuing a crime and a concrete demonstration of intent or design to complete that crime. This must be more substantial than evidence of a conspiracy, but rather must be an act committed by one of the parties to pursue the intent and it must represent a move towards putting the conspiracy into effect. The justification for requiring an overt act to prove conspiracy is that it reduces the chances that a person will be held responsible for conspiring unjustly. An example of a legal case in which an overt act is not required to prove conspiracy would be money laundering.

The use of force by police officers is pertinent to the Fourth Amendment because the amendment states that people are entitled to be secure in their homes, should not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, and should not have these rights violated. Therefore, when a police officer uses deadly force, according to the Fourth Amendment, it must involve a seizure which is considered to be reasonable (Scarry, 2005.) The “reasonableness” standard requires that the actions of a police officer must be evaluated by the court, which takes into account the circumstances, the severity of the crime, whether or not the suspect presents an immediate risk to the safety of police officers or other people, and whether the suspect is resisting arrest or trying to evade arrest by fleeing (Scarry, 2005.) This contrasts with the “substantive due process” standard which addresses public or private actions by individuals that are subject to regulations or laws as well as acts that have been put beyond the scope of governmental interference. Essentially, the substantive due process regulation demands that law enforcement officials are prevented from using force to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The “Castle Doctrine” is a law that exists in many states and which allows that when inside one’s private home, an individual does not have a duty to retreat and may in fact use deadly force in order to defend his or her property, person, or that of another person (DeBoer, 2012.) Outside of the person’s “castle” the person has a responsibility to retreat if possible before using reasonable force. In contrast, the “stand-your-ground” laws allow a person to use force in order to defend oneself if there is a “reasonable” belief of a threat. Under these laws, deadly force is acceptable under certain circumstances such as when a person is in imminent threat of significant bodily harm or death. The fairness of this law came to widespread public attention after the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida last year, and has been widely debated because of the outrage that followed that tragedy.

References:

Anderson, T.and Gardner, C. (2011). Criminal Law,11th ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning.

DeBoer, H. and Randall, M. (2012, April 24). The Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground Law. Retrieved February 5, 2013, from OLR Research Project: http://cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm

Kahan, D and Robbins, I. (2002). Solicitation. Retrieved February 5, 2013, from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Solicitation.aspx

Overt Act. (2010). Retrieved February 5, 2013, from US Legal: http://conspiracy.uslegal.com/elements-of-the-crime/overt-act/

Scarry, L. (2005, September 23). The Fourth Amendment and Deadly Force. Retrieved February 5, 2013, from Police One: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/135084-The-4th-Amendment-and-deadly-force/