Criminal Liability And Use Of Force - Essay Example

Paper Soliciting could mean to beg, try to lure or to look for. On the other hand, soliciting in law could mean dishing outmoney or offers to someone so that he/she gets involved in a hidden crime or making them to commit it. Crime of solicitation is when someone has been made to do the crime on command like, suicide bombers and robbers who are working for someone that has ordered and commanded them by paying them or their families. For example, if John orders McCain to throw grenade attacks in the middle of a town, then John is guilty of crimes of solicitation. Just like al-Qaida operates in their minute groupings, their team head is guilty of solicitation. Most people are paid on recruitment and their families compensated incase of anything like death. Corroboration means supporting a statement or a happening by giving more information or evidence. It involves something like a document or witnesses just like any other extra sources apart from the one present. When someone is arraigned in court on the event that they solicited another person, it has to be proven. At this point, corroboration comes in. In court, there always has to be evidence otherwise multitude of people will be held custody and others for no solid reason. Corroboration requirements apply on a crime of solicitation when the accused is guilty of commanding another person to commit a crime. Not only is corroborating evidence a requirement on its own, it needs one witness along with it. Corroborating evidence is so firm on its own that it only needs one witness. It can have recordings of audio and video acts or any other doing. Someone is found guilty even on planning a solicited crime even though the crime is not in progress. Crime of solicitation can be numerous in one plan considering whether they happened in different places, different ways, different times and different payments with different amounts. The accused would be facing several suits. It is found sensible that if one encourages another person to commit a specific crime, it is part of that crime too. Conspiracy is termed used as the agreement or merging of ideas between two people to commit a crime. A conspiracy is successful when there is a motive and is agreed upon, an intention to the motive and an overt act. An overt act could be something like buying of ammunitions and guns to be used in certain crime. Overt act is a very transparent act that can be used as proof in front of a jury or during jurisdiction on a presentation of a crime. If either of the conspirators dies or pulls out it does not mean the conspiracy is over. Whether the overt act has gone through or not, if one of the co-conspirators is not present, the conspiracy process will still be in progress. An overt act is basically for manifestation of a crime. Before completion of a crime, an overt act should take place. In progress of a case it is important that an overt act be presented to serve as a firm support to evidence. It should be known that an overt act undertaken by any co-conspirators is enough evidence to a crime. Any act or conduct carried outside the agreed time span of a conspiracy is not considered an overt act. If someone or a co-conspirator is gone ‘mute’ on any conspiratorial crime, it goes under consideration as an overt act. On a single overt act of conspiracy, it is enough evidence to judge all the people involved in the conspiracy even if there is a late comer on the event that they came in after the plan had taken place. In a case dealing with crime, overt act must be given full proof for the jury to prosecute the accused. When all the members of the conspiracy do not have unanimity, an overt act is required and the opposite is true. When a co-conspirator is accused of money laundering and the jury was not given forth a proper proof, an overt act is not essential. The fourth amendment refers that when a suspect threatens police officers, anybody around in the surrounding with a murder weapon deadly force can be used. If a police officer encounters a mental case or a drug addict who is threatening family and the neighborhood he or she is supposed to use deadly force before anyone else gets harmed. In the past, police officers have been subjected to serious injuries because they engaged in soft talk with the subjects. When someone accuses a police officer for use of excessive force to a jury or court, the officer will be judged according to the fourth amendment if it was reasonable force. A police officer’s work is to protect citizens and they had let a situation which will cause havoc and harm just because of one, person it will be very unfair to others and the police officer themselves. As opposed to one person, several people might get hurt. In a situation where someone was shot by an officer, the public might be the first one to point fingers and accusing them of murdering the citizens. In the constitution of the U.S government, citizens have the right not to be seized in any reasonable way by the officers. In such a case, a police officer is not supposed to use unreasonable force. If the subject attempts to refuse arrest or shows signs of trying to escape, beyond doubt a lot of force is in order. Substantive due process (SDP) is driving of strains by courts to both legislative and executive bodies. It differentiates between how courts judge a crime, to a person, the public and how the court judges someone beyond the governments’ rules. If a subject is resistant to any kind of arrest or seizure, reasonableness approach in the fourth amendment comes in for use. SDP is meant to reconsider a certain judgment due a few conditions that were misjudged. SDP will use beliefs and values that fall under the fifth and fourteenth amendment. No one will be thinking of the law when they see a serial killer or an armed robber right on their door. Nobody will consider not breaking the rule. They will always be thinking of how safe am I or how safe is my family. Force is applied by an officer in order to take control of any situation that might be a threat to people around that scene, or either the person could be threat to himself. To find out whether some applied force is acceptable they should be in accordance with how they were trained as officers. Self-defense is necessary if harm is paused to them, if there was no chance of escaping a situation. When someone’s property is being seized, they ought to use force to get it back if it is rightfully theirs. But if there is a solution to force, which can be used to retrieve the property, there is no need of using force. In order for an officer to have their mission complete and in the right way, they need to have a lawful objective and he/she needs not to back off. That is the point where they are to apply reasonable force. Sometime, force without injury can be excessive force. But whether the officer’s force is deadly or not, it is irrelevant because he is trying to save a situation that will save many people from harm. If someone is on the run, force should not be used on him either unless enough evidence is available that makes him/her guilty. But if someone steals property belonging to someone else, and an officer shows up, if the suspect decides to run he/she can be shot. That will be in defense of someone’s property. Even if it is a shot by the owner, it will not be considered a crime because it is defense to self-property. On the other hand a person has the right to self-defense against excessive force from a police officer for protection. Police officers can be brutal to citizens at some point, which is not fair. Castle doctrines are a set of rules or laws that give citizens the right to guard them at their places of work, stay, their property against deadly force. They doctrines will protect people from intruders, disturbers, and even thieves. The laws tend to give people some sense of confidence in ownership to property. References: Brendan, P. (2012). New and Note worthy. Castle Doctrines from state to state, University of California, Los Angles. Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Read More