Punish a Person for “Evil Thoughts”, Essay Example

A bar owner is criminally liable if a bartender sells a minor an alcoholic beverage even if he or she is not present when this occurs. Even if the bar owner prohibits this type of behavior, it is his or her sole responsibility to ensure that the bar tenders they hire have received the proper training and knowledge to operate the bar according to legal requirements. Therefore, the bar tender can be considered an accomplice to the crime. Although the bar tender does not sell the drinks to the minors, he or she assumes accomplice liability solely based on the ownership of the bar.

Even in a situation in which the bar owner is not completely sure that a bartender will be selling drinks to minors, he or she must preemptively put rules and regulations in place to ensure that this will not happen. Therefore, even if the bar owner is not aware of this action, he or she will remain liable. To be liable as an accomplice, the individual must “know what the criminal is trying to do”, “encourage another person to commit a crime”, and believe that the encouragement would make the crime more likely. In this situation, the encouragement comes natural by a failure to enforce adequate rules within the bar. We cannot claim that this crime is intentional however, because actual aid in this effort was not provided. Rather, the aid was completely unspoken.

As a consequence of accessory liability, it is necessary for bar owners to ensure that they set forth strict regulations and find ways to monitor the actions of their bar tenders. Ultimately, since they own the alcohol that is being sold, both they as owners and the bar tender physically selling the alcohol to a minor are at fault.

Courts are hesitant to punish a person for “evil thoughts” alone because this refers to an intention to do evil, not the actually action itself. It is difficult for the authorities to determine whether an individual with these negative thoughts would be willing to pursue their wants in a manner that will cause another individual physical or mental harm. While attempted criminal activity is a cause for serious concern and would contribute to the need for a police intervention, it is more difficult to diagnose the impact that evil thoughts would have on a potential action.

Ultimately, the extent to which evil thoughts should be considered depend upon the individual. For example, individuals who have committed murders in the past and are considered dangerous would have their evil thoughts taken more seriously. Since these individuals have already committed crimes, these evil thoughts may indicate that they are planning to do so again. Murder is an inchoate crime, so it is likely that these criminals will continue to make the same decisions. On the other hand, an individual who has never committed a crime and simply wishes ill upon someone should not be taken as seriously. Even though this individual may wish someone dead and plan a murder in his or her head, it is unlikely that this type of person would ever carry out such as crime.

Courts are ultimately hesitant to punish a person for evil thoughts alone because this is a common occurrence. Individuals wish others ill will on a regular basis and it is difficult to determine which thoughts will result in action and which thoughts should be taken less seriously. Thus, it is essential to determine the need for further investigation into evil thoughts based on the individual’s criminal history.