Criminal Attempt

Francisca Dearman

September 21, 2017

        This week, chapter 5 was about the elements of criminal attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, also known as inchoate crimes. These are crimes that lead up to other criminal offenses.  It is discussed when should police intervene, if they do it too early suspicious activity could be nothing, but if they do it too late, the crime could have already been committed.

        Criminal attempt was a major part of this chapter. “john Dressler…suggest that it takes six steps for a person to intentionally commit a crime” (Schamalleger 94). There are: The idea of the crime, offender evaluates the crime, intention, preparation, commences acts necessary to complete the crime, finished the action (Schamalleger 94). It is also stated that “almost any crime that can be envisioned can be attempted” (Schamalleger 95). This chapter talks about just the thought or mere preparation of the crime in not necessarily a crime, it will depend on the proximity that the offender gets to committing the crime. There are two elements of specific-intent used to for criminal attempt. They are “the specific attempt to commit a criminal offense and substantial step toward the commission of the intended offense” (Schamalleger).   It also discusses the defenses to charge of criminal attempts. There are only two defenses and they are abandonment, which means they voluntarily stopped the process of committing a crime and impossibility, means they could not have completed the envisioned crime even if they had been able to carry it out (Schamalleger 103;105).

        The second element was criminal conspiracy, “an agreement between two or more people to commit or to affect the commission of an unlawful act or to use unlawful means to accomplish an act that is not unlawful” (Schamalleger 106).  The elements of conspiracy are “an agreement between two or more people, the intention to carry out an act that is unlawful, a culpable intent on the part of the defendant, and depending on the jurisdiction, preparation, an over act, or substantial step in furtherance of the conspiracy” (Schamalleger 108) Depending on the degree of conspiracy, it can be punishable either as a misdemeanor or a felony.

        The third was “criminal solicitation, occurs when one person request or encourages another to perform a criminal act” (Schamalleger 112). The defendant must be proven to have the mental ability to encourage a person to commit a crime and the person committing the crime must have the mental state to fulfill the crime. that

What do you think? Case 1

1. Do you agree that the girls had taken a substantial step toward the commission of targeted offense? What test does the court establish for Tennessee to determine if a substantial step has been taken?

Yes, I do agree that the girls had taken a substantial step toward the commission of a target offense. Tennessee used the physical proximity test, to prove that the girls had taken substantial steps to commit the crimes they corroborated.

2. Would your answer be different if Tennessee used the last-step test or the physical proximity test? If so how?

No, because the girls had the power to complete the crime almost immediately. If they had not been interrupted they could have gone through and we would probably be looking at very different charges.

3. Do you think that the court, in using common law rules of construction, modifies the legislative enactment? Is the court using its judgement to replace that of the drafters of the statue?

I do not think that the court modifies the legislative enactment. I believe the they refined that a person will be held accountable. They did not let the verbiage “overt act” get in the way of seeing that these girls had corroborated their stories, had the elements of the crime present to commit the crime.

www.justice.org is the American Association for Justice website.

The first thing I saw the different convention and conferences that this organization puts on for their members. There is a membership fee, and it is based on the how long lawyers have been in practice. You can look up service list, member benefits and publications. They offer continued education and different forums that support their members as well.  There are article and newsletters on current events listed on this website too. It seems to be a professional networking group for lawyers.

Chapter 5

        In this chapter, we learned about the different types of defenses uses in criminal courts. The two that our book discusses are justification and excuses, but in this chapter, we will be examining the justification defense. Justification defense is “a type of legal defense in which the defendant admits to committing the act in question but claims it was necessary in order to avoid some greater evil” (Schamalleger 131). The justification defenses are also considered affirmation defenses. The burden is placed on the defendant in these types of defenses.

        Justification defense includes but is not limited to” necessity, self-defense, defense of others, defense of home and property, resisting unlawful arrest and consent” (Schamalleger 133). Terms like reasonable persons, apparent danger, and deadly force are introduced in this chapter.  These terms reasonable person is important because it is the standard of the average person with common sense and mental capabilities. You see that term a lot when defining different statute or laws.

This chapter also covers the retreat rule, stand-your ground laws and the castle exception. These terms are used in the justification defense of self-defense and the defense of home and property.  The retreat rule is basically use what force you have to, to get to a safe location away from the attacker. The castle exception is the exception to that rule. It is said that the house is the safe haven for a person and one does not have to retreat from their home, “even if retreat is possible, before resorting to deadly force in protection of their home” (Schamalleger 145).

What do you think? Case #1

1. Lawrence fired at Agent Howard and killed him after Howard had already drawn his weapon and fired. Why was Lawrence unable to claim self-defense in the shooting? Do you think he should have been allowed to raise the claim? Why or why not?

Lawrence was not able to claim self-defense be he was the aggressor of the situation. All of the prior events that led up to the shooting puts him as the aggressor, regardless if Howard shot first. No I do not think he should have been allowed to raise the claim for the simple facts that I have already stated. Self-defense is used when the person is free from fault.