What Are the Two Rationales for the Crime of Attempt - Coursework Example

? CRIMINAL LAW Q What are the two rationales for the crime of attempt? A crime of attempt is committed, when a person holding the intention to commit a crime – does an act that is seemingly a substantial step towards the commission of the intended offense. Crimes of attempts fall under two classifications: incomplete attempts and complete, but imperfect attempts. An incomplete attempt occurs, when the executor of the crime carries out some of the specific actions that are significant towards his completion of the criminal goal, but quits or is barred from continuing the criminal act to its conclusive end. For instance, the offender may have been stopped by a police officer who arrived before the completion of the criminal act. A complete, but imperfect attempt occurs when the offender carries out all the actions that he had planned out to do, but fails to attain the desired end result. An example here is the attempt to murder a victim, where the offender stabs them with a knife and leaves them to die, but they fail to – after being saved or taken to hospital (Hasnas, 13). The two rationales used in determining or making inferences from an attempt crime include the following: Analyzing the dangerous nature of the acts, and evaluating the dangerousness of the defender. In focusing on the dangerous acts, attention is placed on how close the defendant came, towards the completion of the attempted crime, and this move is aimed at averting the danger that may result from the dangerous ways of the defendant. When the focus is on the dangerous nature of the defendant, attention is placed on determining how the defendant has fully developed their criminal intent, and this move is aimed at neutralizing the dangerous conduct. From a legal principle’s perspective, the defendant is considered innocent, until it has been proven that they are guilty of the attempt. The guilty or the innocent status of the defendant is determined by the prosecution team, and not the defendant or the complainant. An example here is the case of a woman who tries to kill the husband with a knife, but the husband escaped the attempt after receiving a cut. In this case, the prosecution must decide whether to charge her for domestic violence or attempted murder, as she cannot be penalized twice for the crime (Fletcher, 149–151). Q 2. Discuss the broken windows theory and provide examples. What has the research shown about the validity of the theory? The broken windows theory is a criminal basis explanation model, which suggests that a society or a part of society which seems lawless ends up becoming a breeding ground for lawlessness and crime. The theory builds its arguments on the basis of social cohesion, and has influenced legal practice since the 1980s. The specific claim portrayed by this theory is that – the cases of neighborhoods that look disordered, unfriendly and broken down – tend to nurture the development of crime and delinquent behavior. The theory, further, suggests that a society that lacks a sense of mutual interest and social cohesion will be faced by an increasing level of criminality. The basis of the central theme of the theory is that the prevalence of disharmony and unfriendliness push the members of society into developing thinking habits – of believing that order, fairness and wrong acts do not matter, and that no one cares. The nurture into incivility leads to the development of incivility among the members of the society, causing them to adjust, into fitting into the uncivilized society. As an example, is the case of a stateless society, where conflict resolution models are not present: in such a society, a person who offends another is not punished, therefore the victim is left to decide whether to revenge the offense or not. Another example is the tendency of children brought up in violence filled homes, as they grow up to become violent, because they adjust and develop the tendencies of violent behavior (Gault & Silver, 240-243). Research in verifying the broken windows theory can be drawn from the research inquiry – instituted to study the view of police officers and criminal justice students on the subject of zero-tolerance policing, which is grounded on the broken windows theory. The results showed that the two groups held, that the reduction of societal disorders, most times minor offenses led to a decrease in the crime levels witnessed within the society. The two groups also cited that the existence of mutual interest and social cohesion reduced crime rates to a significant level (Harcourt & Ludwig, 271-320). Q 3. Discuss, define, compare, and contrast sabotage and espionage Espionage, also called spying, is the act of furtively gathering information about a competing industry or a foreign state government – with the sole aim of placing the home government or organization at some financial or strategic advantage. Under federal law, espionage is prohibited, when it benefits a foreign nation or jeopardizes the national defense of a government or institution (Gerolymatos, 72). Sabotage is the hindrance of normal operations or the damage of property – carried out by civilians or the enemy, during the time of war. It also constitutes any treacherous acts of an enemy – geared at hindering the intended course of action of endeavor in a deliberate manner (Marrin, 7). From an evaluative point of view, sabotage and espionage are similar in a number of ways, including that they share major causal and facilitating changing features, these including, the insecurity of the offender. The two are also similar, in that they can be identified and deterred using the same, or highly similar technical and administrative safeguards. Another similarity is that they are targeted or carried out at the point where the offender views as the strength of the victim. Also, the two are aimed at gaining advantage or competitive ability over the victim, after the elimination or the exposure of the strong points. From a legal principle point of view, both sabotage and espionage are offenses, but the offender is perceived innocent, until they are proved guilty by the prosecution. Also, such offenders cannot be punished more than once, especially when the offense is committed against a government – as both the foreign and the home governments may be interested in the case (Marrin, 7). The major difference between sabotage and espionage is that, often, espionage is committed for the advantage the offender, with no direct disadvantage to the victim – while sabotage is basically disadvantaging the victim, so as to advantage the offender. This is to mean that espionage is often done for the advantage of the offender, not necessarily at the demerit of the victim. In sabotage cases, the chief aim is disadvantaging the victim, so that the offender can draw competitive advantage from the weakness imposed (Gerolymatos, 72). Q 4. Discuss some of the new ways that computers and the internet have made it possible for criminals to commit old crimes. Provide examples of how the law has changed to accommodate these new forms of old crimes. Fraud refers to a deception committed deliberately, with the aim of securing gain in an unlawful or unfair manner – from the victim of the fraud. Fraud may take the following forms: deceit, sharp practice, trickery, pretense, or the breach of contract – all of these geared at drawing a gain or profit from the victim in an unfair manner. Some of the real world frauds that used to take place before the development of computers and the internet could include the following: stealing and luring victims into purchasing non-existent investments and properties like houses. However, these crimes have evolved to a new level, where stealing and theft have taken the forms of credit card fraud, and identity theft. Investment fraud, which used to take place in the real situation of a crime scene, for example, the sale of an investment to more than two buyers has changed its form to take a different one. In the modern world, the form taken is that of investment fraud, where fraudulent online companies are luring their victims into investing in investments that never pay. An example is forex trading which is done over the internet, and freelancing, which are major sources of income when done for the right companies (Glenny, 43). The law has changed to accommodate these new forms of old crimes by adjusting its provisions to allow that a crime without a perceivable crime scene is allowable at a court of law. This is the case, as the crime scene and the evidence of cyber crime can be orchestrated at several different crime scenes, where the pieces of the evidence to the crime are scattered across different locations on the cyber space. Often, cyber criminals will use unidentifiable networks from different countries or regions, or the usage of technology to create anonymity which may be traced to an innocent person. The law has also evolved, not to rely only on physical evidence, as non-solid evidence like SMSs and emails are admissible as evidence in courts of law (Brenner 5-15). Reference List Brenner Susan, Cybercrime Metrics: Old wine, New Bottles? Virginia Journal of Law and Technology Vol. 9 No. 13: 5-15(2004). Fletcher George, Rethinking Criminal Law § 2 (2000)  Gerolymatos Andre, Espionage and Treason (1986). Gault Martha & Silver Eric, Spuriousness or Mediation? Broken Windows according to Sampson and Raudenbush, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 36, pp 240-243 (2008). Glenny Misha, DarkMarket: cyberthieves, cybercops, and you § 2 (2011). Harcourt Bernard & Ludwig Jens, Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment, The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 73, no. 1, pp 271-320 (2005). Hasnas John, Once More unto the Breach: The Inherent Liberalism of the Criminal Law and Liability for Attempting the Impossible, George Mason University School of Law - Hastings Law Journal. p. 13 (2002). Marrin Albert, The Secret Armies: Spies, Counterspies, and Saboteurs in World War II p. 7 (1985). Read More