Criminal Liability And The Use Of Force

Summary This is a three-paged paper on criminal liability and the use of force

CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND THE USE OF FORCE Name

Institution

Instructor

Class

Criminal Liability and the Use of Force Criminal Liability is what unlocks the rational composition of the Criminal Law. In criminal law, the prosecutor needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt to show that a person is liable for a criminal act. An accused person is therefore presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. The United States constitution authorizes the law enforcement officers to use force in particular state of affairs; and because of this, the officers are thus trained in the use of force. The officer's faces many circumstances during their career where there is need to apply appropriate force example include making arrests, restraining suspects, and enforcing law and order in a demonstration. When the level of force exceeds the level considered justifiable under the circumstances, however, the activities of the police come under public scrutiny (Aspen, 2008) The Crime of Solicitation Solicitation is a criminal offence in the United States; it is the act of giving someone a reward it in form of money or something of value in order to propel him or her to commit a crime with the definite intension that the solicited individual commits the offense.

Examples of solicitation crimes and how corroboration requirements are used in solicitation statutes In Ostrander v com a husband solicited another individual to murder his estranged wife's lover, he also took it upon himself to drive the undercover law enforcement officers to show him where the lover might be found. He was properly convicted of both attempted capital murder for hire and solicitation to commit murder (658 S.E.2d 346) In State V Clemmons, a legal representative was convicted of "solicitation of obstruction of justice '' because of his appeal to a store employee to obtain dismissal of shoplifting charges against the lawyers client (396 S.E.2d 616). The offence of solicitation or incitation is committed even if the individual solicited refuses to cooperate and repudiates the proposal. It is irrelevant, in most cases whether the reward or payment is offered and whether it is acknowledged or refused. Evidence of offer or reward or payment is however important to help prove solicitation (Aspen, 2008) Most states have set laws that deal with both general solicitation and specific solicitation. The solicitation laws requires that the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person has done more than make a casual suggestion that a crime has been committed. Some state statutes have particular corroboration requirements in general solicitation statute (Gardner, 2012). Some conspiracy statutes require evidence of an overt act by one of the co-conspirators,

Examine what the justification is for such a requirement, and in what type of case might an overt act not be required. A conspiracy is an accord by two or more individuals to commit a criminal offence or sequence of criminal acts, or to achieve a legal act by unlawful means. At common law, a conspiracy need not be based on an express agreement. Furthermore, an agreement can exist although not all of the parties to it have knowledge of every detail of the arrangement, as long as each party is aware of its essential nature (332 U.S. 539). However, there are laws that that demand for reasonable proof to for the commission of an over Act in commitment of the conspiracy. A single overact by any individual to a conspiracy no matter how small, is sufficient evidence to prosecute all the persons to a conspiracy. Many countries apply the over act law to all crimes. Explain why the Fourth Amendment applies to the use of force by a police officer, and how the "reasonableness" standard compares to a "substantive due process" approach. A law enforcement officer's triumphant use of lethal force constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, for that reason it must be reasonable. The fact-detailed nature of whether a police officer use of force is unreasonable or unwarranted depends on the whole circumstances surrounding the encounter. Additionally, the issue of whether a deliberate use of deadly force by a police officer is permissible under the Fourth Amendment requires an objective reasonableness investigation (Bassiouni, 2008) Substantive due process is a set of guidelines that that hold the due process clause. This doctrine calls for all governmental involvement in fundamental liberties and rights be reasonable and fair and in furtherance of a legal state's interest. The Unites States Supreme Court in the 20th century made use of substantive due process to sanction the fourth, fifth, and sixth Amendments of the Supreme laws of the land by constraining particular actions committed by the judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers (Aspen,2008)

Discuss the amount of force that may be used in the defense of property today, what is meant by the "castle doctrine" and "make my day" rules. Every individual has a right to protect his property invaded, using reasonable force when he believes that such action is important to prevent a person's illegal entry. However, there are instances where lethal force if permitted, an example is when the entry is violent or where an intruder is about to commit a felony , and the property owner believes deadly force is crucial to prevent an attack. The underlying principle for allowing self-defense in these scenarios is based upon the right of property owner to be secure in their property, rather than the right to protect the property (Bassiouni, 2008) Castle doctrine is an American Law that authorizes a property owner to use lethal force when necessary to defend his property from an attacker under specified circumstances like great bodily harm ,or the fear of death . The phrase "Make My Day Law" is a law that defends individuals from any civil or criminal accusations in circumstances that they have used lethal force to defend their property from an invader.

References 658 S.E.2d 346 (Va.App.2008) 100 N.C. App 286, 396 S.E.2d 616(1990) Bassiouni M. Cherif (2008). International Criminal Law: International enforcement, Volume 3. USA Gardner. J. Thomas, Anderson.M. Terry (2012) Criminal Law. 12th ed. USA. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557-58 (1947) Aspen Publishers, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. (2008) Criminal Law. USA