Criminal Law and the Penal Code - Assignment Example

Inset of Criminology Case The penal is very clear on the various circumstances which may be considered criminal attempts. Section 5.02 of the penal code clearly stipulates the various circumstances under which one can be victimized for attempted criminal offence. The code defines a criminal attempt as a situation whereby a person intentionally engages himself or herself in a conduct which is likely to suggest an attempt to the said offence. This definition clearly explains how rightfully Joe was arrested for an attempted arson since he was heard communicating the same intention to his wife. Besides, Joe is caught at night with a gasoline can in his car. Though not found torching the premises, the intentions were very clearly indicated as he even had a cigar lit in his office, a clear source of fire which would then be easily used for torching the premises. To this extent, Joe, having been heard communicating his intent to her wife, coupled with the fact that he comes to the office at night, not official working hours, and being in possession of a gasoline can with a source of fire, the lit cigar, portrayed clear indications of trying to execute his said demands. He is therefore very liable to the arrest since given time and opportunity, that is, if he was not revealed in time, he would have actually torched the premises given the fact that his intentions were clearly demonstrated in his actions. Considering these facts therefore, Joe was rightfully arrested by the police. Even though we are not told whether there was gasoline in the can or not, the intentions were clearly demonstrated and deserved the arrest for trial purposes. Joe however has no criminal conviction under section 220.1 of the penal code which defines arson as willful torching of a premise or dwelling place belonging to another person. He is however answerable for the attempt given the clear evidences he demonstrated in his acts. Case 2A: Perjury is a criminal offence which involves people swearing with false information concerning various issues. The charges however have to be validated with clear set of witnesses to validate the allegations. In this case, even though the woman in question claims that her ex- husband used false information to justify the reasons for their divorce, we are not told of any other person who can be held assertive to the allegations. It is therefore very difficult to clearly determine if the complainant has clear allegations against her ex- husband. Lack of clear proof to these allegations therefore does not hold the husband responsible for perjury and so does not need to be arrested for the same. Case 2B: Under the MPC, it is true that the defendant lied in his identity as per the information provided herein. Lying to hide ones identity during a court trial is a clear indication of valid criminal offence committed by the real person and which he is trying to hide by not properly revealing his identity. Under section 241.1, the actions portrayed by Bill Franklin by concealing his real identity to suite that of another person is a clear intention to hide a commited crime and are liable for conviction of perjury under section 241.1 of the model penal code. Section 241.1 Model Penal Code asserts that ‘a person is guilty of perjury, a third degree felony, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true’ (Deborah & Arthur). Under this provision, it is certain that Bill has committed an offence for which he is answerable. The convictions to which he is subjected therefore meet the requirements of the law as stipulated in the penal code. Case 2C: Giving false information concerning a court case as is defined under the penal code section 241.1 as an offence related to perjury. The officer having given false information concerning his relationship with the Mexicans is an act of offence warranting his conviction under the MPC section 241.1. The provision of enough evidence justifying the conditions involved is a key proof that the offences committed are valid and in existence. To this extent therefore, the arresting officer having uttered a prejudiced statement about Mexicans before the arrest, is liable to conviction for the denial of the same offence before a court of law. The witness, two colleague law administrators having heard the senior officer make such remarks is a clear indication to justify the arrest and consequent conviction of the officer as have committed a perjury offence as stipulated in the MPC. Case 3: The penal code specifications on robbery attempts are very clear about the definitions of robbery or any attempt with such intentions. Holding a toy gun with an intention of carrying away property belonging to another individual is what the code refers to as a robbery attempt. Under the penal code section 222 Al should be charged with the crime of aggravated or armed robbery. This is because he had the intention of taking the money from the cashier and keeping it for his own use while at the same time threatening to shoot the cashier. Gui on the other hand is as well liable for the same charges as he drives Al to the scene of the incident. Together they conspired to carry out the event. Such attempts under the penal code is graded as an attempt of robbery with violence often committed when the criminal is actually armed and has the intention of attaining illegal property when armed with a weapon. The two therefore should be charged with the offence of aggravated robbery and not homicide since they did not commit the murder but the police was. Case 4: Burglary according to the MPC definition refers to a person entering an occupied structure with an intention of carrying away property which belongs to another person Kugler, Green, & Matthew. While doing this, the offender should be armed with a weapon ready to strike should his or her intentions be revealed. To this extent therefore, Dean is not liable for conviction based on the arguments of the MPC concerning burglary. He was not armed at the time of the event but merely crept into Mike’s house and secretly steals Mike’s property without his notice. The charge on burglary will lack adequate weight to justify the proof supporting the same attempt since Dean was not armed at the time of the offence. The penal code approves burglary only when the offender was armed with deadly weapons and or explosives to aid in carrying out his offences. Besides, the MPC definition of theft to include theft from the person, shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling, swindling by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving or concealing embezzled property, and receiving or concealing stolen property (Boland). Basing our arguments on this definition therefore we can conclude that dean participated in an act of theft by swindling another person’s property without his prior knowledge over the same. According to Elliott & Quinn arguments, both burglary and theft can be charged together should the evidences provided in court prove so. This occurs when the offender, at the point of the offence armed himself with a weapon having an intention of using force in acquiring another person’s property within his or her own premises. With the main intention of stealing property while at the same time armed with deadly weapons, the offender can be certainly charged with both offences Case 5: The commission of suicide is as well another offence which has been tackled under the MPC, according to the specifications here; a person can be liable of conviction for committing or assisting another person to commit suicide either knowingly or under deception. Dr. K, having assisted the patient in committing suicide under his own supervision is certainly liable to the charges. Since this was done under his supervision and within his own consent, we can then deduce that the offence was intentionally committed by Dr. K and he should be charged with murder assistance. Case 6A: Under section 220.1 of the MPC, a person is answerable to a charge on arson if he intentionally starts a fire to destroy property either belonging to him or to another person with the sole intention of collecting insurance on such losses. In addition, the person should be liable for an affirmative defense to prosecution if in the process of conducting the act, he or she recklessly destroy another person’s property or dwelling or endanger the lives of those dwelling in those abodes by his act. Under these specifications, Marvin is liable to the charges of arson. 6B: If in any case he destroys another person’s abode in the process, he will be answerable to the charges of a second degree under the same specifications. This is because Marvin’s main intentions for setting his car ablaze were to collect the refund from the insurance company which he actually does. Burnig another person’s abode in the process therefore results into an unintended offence related to arson and is as well treated as arson on its own. He has no other mercies left before the court of law other than face the full course of the law under the MPC’s specifications. Case 7: Harrison, according to article 241 sections 7 and 9 is answerable to the charges of impersonation of a public servant and concealing physical evidences about his appearance. By taking off in a police car and in police uniforms, it is clear that Harrison was trying to hide his identity both to the public as well as to the prison authorities in order to facilitate his escape. Even though Harrison was jailed under unclear circumstances, his commission of a perjury offence while under the prison authority makes him an offender of the law according to the specifications of the MPC. Still under article 242 section 6 and 7, Harrison will be prosecuted for escape since through his disguise as a prison warden he manages to escape from jail. Moreover, the prosecutor would as well charge Harrison with the offence related to theft under section 9 in article 223 of the MPC. This article unauthorizes any person from using any vehicle or automobile belonging to the authority in disguise for his or her identity. However, Harrison would have to his defense the fact that he was imprisoned unlawfully, a fact which made him escape from prison. If I was the prosecutor, I would file the charges of escape according to article 223 sections 6 and 7 of the MPC, impersonation of a public servant as a matter of concealing his identity. To this effect, I would also prosecute the complainant of a disguised attempt to make an escape from the prison authority while at the same time using an unauthorized automobile. Case 8: following the revelations on the possession of illegal properties belonging to other persons by the 12 offenders arrested in this case, if I was the prosecutor in the case, I would charge the offenders with theft offences since they were actually found in possession of stolen materials under article 223 of the MPC. Considering the illegal possession of these materials under the same article, the offenders are liable to answer any charges against them concerning theft. However, owing to the manner in which the detection was conducted, it indicated a sign of an intended setting of an allurement to other people with an aim of trapping them and relating their actions to the offence intended for justification. Any person can be set just in the same manner even when he or she is not a thief. Such kind of intentional negligence with malicious gains does not count under the MPC regulations concerning the detection of any criminal offense. I would therefore appeal to the court as the defending attorney for the release of the accused since they were actually lured into the act and did not commit them willfully. Case 9A: In this case, the suspect will be answerable to the charges of criminal homicide by committing an intentional attempt to murder under the MPC article 210.1. This is because he preplanned the murder and executed it in the end. Another homicide offense which has been committed by the suspect is manslaughter since his intention was not to kill the woman but to lure the actress into his trap through killing the woman. Some of the legal issues related to this case involve the premeditated plans written down by the woman which actually result into her death. We can therefore argue that the suspect did not kill the woman but her own will killed her. Besides, the clinicians would as well be held accountable for assisted suicide to the woman as they relieved her of the life support allowing her to die as a result. Under article 210 sections 4 & 5 of the MPC, the woman’s relative, clinicians in attendance and the woman are responsible for suicide offense (The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia). Even if the year and one rule are followed in this matter, the accused would still be liable to suicide offenses and the suspect to homicide offense. This is because the intentions were actually premeditated and executed. Even though the woman remained alive for over one year, the charges would still remain upon the suspect given the underlying circumstances under which the offenses were committed. 9B: The MPC acquits anyone of an offense if he argues based on insanity. If the suspect argues in this direction, he would be acquitted of the charges or the homicide charges on murder would be reduced to manslaughter since the results were not intended. If this is confirmed to be the contrary, then the charges would continue. The suspect has to his advantage the fact that he did not intend to kill the woman in order to achieve anything but to lure another person into submission. Based on this fact the suspect’s case can be reduced to manslaughter other than murder. Besides, it is not his actions which result into the death of the woman but the specifications from her own will. On the contrary, the suspect would be convicted of murder if he doesn’t assume the insanity and the case argued as shooting with an intention for murder. Besides, the actress would agitate against him considering the fact that his intentions to lure her into submission resulted into endangering the life of another innocent civilian contrary to her beliefs. If the suspect argues based on the idea of irresistible impulse resulting into the commission of the offence, his case may be reconsidered by being reduced to a lighter offense such as manslaughter instead of intended murder. Irresistible impulse occurs when an offender commits an offense under an impulse which is forcing the offender to commit the offense as the only available option. For instance in this case the irresistible impulse was the allurement of the actress and this was a good opportunity which presented itself and which he could not resist. Coupled with the arguments on insanity due to the strong infatuation (Boland), he could not resist the commission of the offense in order to achieve favor from the actress. If the suspect framed his arguments based on the specifications from the M’Naughten test, his case would as well be reduced to simpler charges since at the time of committing the offense, he was actually under certain compulsion hence not aware of the outcome as long as he gained what he dearly needed. It is clear from the explanation that the offender committed the offense in order to win favor and did not actually consider the turn of the events as the possible outcomes. I would advice that the suspect pursues this defense in order to help reduce the charges against him. Assuming insanity or basing his arguments on M’Naughten test or the irresistible impulse would help build on his arguments against premeditated murder attempt. Case 10: this case can be argued in two dimensions. The first possible charge is a premeditated murder given the fact that the girl’s father actually had in mind the plans of killing his colleague before committing the offense. It is true that the father’s confrontation with the coach were preplanned under article 241. 1- 4 (Deborah and Arthur) based on the fact that her daughter had informed him of the molestation prior to the hunting day. The father would therefore be answerable to the charges of homicide under murder allegations. On the contrary, the father’s intentions were to kill the coach in order to protect his daughter from molestation. In other wards his intention was not to kill the coach for any beneficial result but for purposes of protection. Besides, he had not been informed that the allegations against the coach were mere falsehood. To this extent therefore, the father can be acquitted of premeditated murder and charged for manslaughter. The charges on manslaughter seem to have more weight on the father’s case as his intentions were not actually to willingly chosen but occurred accidentally during the confrontation. Bearing in mind that both went hunting armed with guns, it was very likely that even the coach could have killed this father should he not have reacted fast enough to protect himself. It therefore occurred that in the course of offering a self defense for his own protection as well as that of the daughter, he killed the coach. The case on manslaughter would therefore hold more compared to that of murder. Works Cited Boland, F.,. ""Insanity, the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights." ‘’Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 47.26 (1996): 54- 62. Deborah, W., Denno, and A., McGivney, Arthur. "selected model penal code provisions." The Model Penal Code (2009): 20- 58. Elliott, Catherine, and Frances, Quinn. Pearson Education. 3rd. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education, 2000. Kugler, Stuart,, P., Green and B. Matthew. "Community Perceptions of Theft Seriousness: A Challenge to Model Penal Code and English Theft Act Consolidation." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7.3 (2010): 511–537. The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. "The Criminal Process and Persons Suffering from Mental Disorder." The Law Reform Commision Act 1972 69 (1991). Read More