Proponents of John Gotti Jr.’s, Essay Example

Gotti Jr. should be charged with criminal conspiracy! Explain why he should?

Proponents of John Gotti Jr.’s conviction as a mob boss of the Gambino Family argue that United States of America v. Gotti et al. US 641 F. (1986) offered substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt as a leader of an organized, criminal conspiracy. ‘Group think’ perspectives denote that collective thought is an integral aspect to organized crime (Ohlin 2007). An anticipatory crime within U.S. federal law, conspiracy must be distinguished from mere complicity, in that concerted intent to commission crimes requires mental state or mens rea and sufficient evidence of target offenses as a result of those objectives. Inchoate offenses traditionally require a substantial step, yet with conspiracy ‘anti-social’ conduct must also be evidenced. From a legal perspective it might be argued, then, that despite firm belief that Gotti was guilty of the crime of conspiracy, only with co-conspirator omission allowed in exception to the ‘hearsay rule’ we see that evidentiary proof of Gotti’s guilt is somewhat shaky.

Although the crime of conspiracy is somewhat vague, this is but one of the many reasons that the prosecution has a distinct advantage. The crime of conspiracy serves as a device for acting against special and continuing dangers incident to group activity, and also (like other anticipatory offenses) as a means to proceed against persons who have sufficiently manifested their disposition to criminality. Interestingly, Gotti was sentenced to federal prison for crimes related to fiscal transactions and not the prosecution’s desired offense of felony murder. In the end, strict rule application begs the question: was Gotti a definitively ‘anti-social’ person according to US federal law?  Agreement is the basis for mens rea in conspiracy, rather than maliciousness or even recklessness condoning conviction of manslaughter. In some cases, agreement just might be ‘tacit consent.’