Preview

The Pros And Cons Of A Conspirator

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
102 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Pros And Cons Of A Conspirator
Under the eyes of the federal government this person still judge as conspirator, better more if this person know about the plan of the crime and does not communicate to the authorities. This person definitely is conspirator.
The next aspect is when a group of conspirators are arrested but one of the conspirators does not because, this co-conspirator despairs, was far of way or death in the effect of the crime letting alone one of the group the same this last is judging as conspirator. In addition a group of conspirators has more probabilities to effect the criminal act than one conspirator.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    George Fletcher’s principle of manifest criminality [1] states that a persons thoughts and attitudes have to be put into action for a crime to be committed. The reason that we do not punish people for their thoughts is because it would be “impractical, inequitable, and unjust.” For a person to found criminally liable, a person must have committed an act in support of the crime, otherwise we would be punishing them for their thoughts [2]. Crimes involving an attempt or a conspiracy generally require an act to be committed in furtherance of the criminal activity, even though the actual planned crime failed or was not fully committed [3]. These crimes go beyond mere thought and require overt actions.…

    • 2642 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In chapter seven, we read about the use of hearsay in the courtroom. What is conspiracy? Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to commit an illegal act (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 179). Most people now days would rather pay someone to commit the crime for them, so that it won’t come back on them, but that doesn’t work. What is hearsay? Hearsay is the second-hand testimony; reports by one person about what another person said (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 180). It states that Rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence defines hearsay: “Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The Rule 801(c) elements of hearsay are thus: 1. a statement, which can be verbal, written, or assertive conduct; 2. Made by an out-of-court declarant; 3. Offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 180). A declarant is a person who makes a statement, either in or out of court (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 180). The co-conspirator rule is the Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) (2) (E) provides that statements made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay. The justification of this rule is that parties in a conspiracy are essentially partners, and an admission by one partner is fairly attributable to the other partners (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 185). It is also stated that most courts have held that statements by co-conspirators are not “testimonial,” and thus are not subject to the Confrontation Clause’s requirement that the defendant have an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the person who made the statement (Anderson & Gardner, 2013, p. 185).…

    • 625 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The pressure a witness feels in a lineup to choose a suspect can be a great one. Often times the witness looks to the police officer for guidance. When a witness is not sure they may identify a suspect and after ask the police officer how well they did and if they choose the right person. When conducting a lineup, a police officer should be careful not to give feedback or confirmation. When a police officer simply says “good job” even if the witness chooses wrong, it can cause a huge confident boost. When its time for the trial the witness is more likely to make the same mistake again (Clare, 2012, para. 7). When conducting a lineup, the police should use the Blind or Blinded Administration method. In this method the police officer does not know anything about who the suspect is. This will prevent any suggestive or…

    • 666 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In this assignment I am going to explain the main elements of law, including detailed examples that are true and relevant to the case to illustrate the meaning of this.…

    • 1126 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The theory exaggerates on the significance on the group behind the crimes than a person accountable for.…

    • 2412 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    In this age of an almost overwhelming profusion of criminal activity, it may seem surprising to discover that not all crimes and criminals are treated in the same manner. In fact, on closer inspection, research has suggested that there is a tendency for certain crimes and criminals to be positively overlooked, typically these being crimes of the powerful. (Ditton, 1977; Box, 1983; Chambliss, 1989; in Muncie, 1996)…

    • 2354 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    References: Carlo Morselli, & Cynthia Giguere. (2006). "Legitimate Strengths in Criminal Networks". Crime, Law and Social Change, 45(3), 185-200. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1192308311).…

    • 1385 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    | Review this week’s objectives and discuss additional insights and questions that may have arisen.Review the Organized Crime Group Analysis assignment, due in Week Four.Learning Team Deliverable: Your team must make a 200+ word post on a topic, of your team’s choosing, drawn from the readings. Cite to at least two sources to support your points. Please make the post in your team forum. The post is due by the last day of the class week (Monday).…

    • 1860 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Courtroom Workgroup

    • 1094 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The courtroom workgroup is a mechanism for prosecutorial discretion. Various techniques are used to convince the defendant that the evidence against him or her is overwhelming. “Charge stacking” is a process by which police and prosecutors create case with numerous charges or numerous instances of the same charge to convince the defendant that the risk of not pleading guilty is intolerable. The defendant may be convinced to plead guilty to a few of the charges in return for not being prosecuted for the remaining charges. Because the courtroom workgroup deviates from the public consensus of how justice works, it has developed a deviant set of virtues to continue its work and facilitate daily life for its participants. ("Courtroom Workgroup", n.d.) This group interacts daily to make sure that rules are being followed in each individual group but also to make sure it is given in a timely manner. The courtroom work group needs to communicate in order to offer plea bargains and choose jurors. The role of the prosecutor is to protect the government or community’s best interests. With that being said, the prosecutor must take cases based on the facts of each case and the evidence provided. If the prosecutor did not do this and took every case under less stringent requirements it could leave many cases going to trial with a…

    • 1094 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    quiz week 3

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages

    d. A person who may have planned, participated in, committed, or be knowledgeable about a crime…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Criminal Organizations are highly organized, more than ever before; they have taken a new approach to handle various situations and committing more complex crimes. In this paper we will be discussing how organize crime groups may be considered social institutions of the criminal world, and what empirical and speculative theories are relevant to organized crime and criminal behavior.…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are two types of organizations within the criminal justice field they are bureaucratic and patron-client organizations. The bureaucratic organization is an organization that enforces the law. However, the patron-client organization chooses to break the law. There are many differences between the groups, but there are a few things that they have in common. This paper will describe the difference between the main models of organized crimes and explain why the models are necessary for understanding crime.…

    • 588 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In group communications theory, there are labeling terms for each contributing member of the group, and how the group interacts among one another - the result is group communication. These contributing factors of situation, goals, roles, norms, and cohesiveness make up the constellation of variables. The film 12 Angry Men depicts the constellation of variables. In the film, twelve jurors in a hot room, forced to deliberate the fate of a man accused of murder. The group comes together in an uncomfortable environment and when one of twelve jurors stands against the group, voting not-guilty for reasonable doubt, there is immediate hostility. The situation is there has to be a unanimous vote as to whether the accused man is innocent or guilty of murdering his father. The goal becomes at first to convince one juror that the accused man is guilty – to which after hours of deliberation, the goal is then flipped where 11 believe the man is innocent and 1 believes he is guilty.…

    • 734 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    . What is organized crime? What are some examples of organized crime? What are similarities among various criminal organizations? Explain your answer.…

    • 321 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A number of jurors attempt to influence the decision‐making process. Using the above framework, explain why the architect (Juror 8) is so much more effective than the others. Henry Fonda, who works as an architect is considered to be a consciousness person, a man with values and commitment to the task assigned to him. During the trial Henry Fonda juror number 8, had serious doubts about the defendant’s lawyer and the evidence presented in the case. Henry believed the lawyer did not pressure or weaken the prosecution witnesses. The evidence presented which was the knife used in the murder is not as unusual as testimony promotes, and to prove it, Henry went to the boy’s neighborhood and bought an identical knife for six dollars. Henry entered the jury room with a mind filled with doubts and unanswered questions, at the same time realizing that the defendant’s life “The Boy” is at stake. Jurors usually depend on facts and evidence in their judgment, but in this particular case some jurors derived their judgment in terms of their own personalities, backgrounds, prejudices and emotional tilts. When pride, jealousy and frustration all emerge as seen in the movie, we see irrational and rational decision making. Henry’s influence effectiveness can be summarized in the following points:‐ 1‐ In the preliminary vote, Henry’s realized that some group members were going along with the group by voting guilty, similar to Asch’s Study. He realized some reluctance from juror number 2 “bank Teller”, 5 “man from slums”, 6 “painter”, 11 “watch maker” and 9 “old man”. Henry was the only juror voted as not guilty. His goal was to bring the group back to common sense, interact and brainstorm the case instead of jumping into conclusions. Henry made comments about values, fairness and righteousness. Then reminded the group that the final verdict has to be beyond any reasonable doubt. When the group attempted to convince Henry of the boy’s guilt, by presenting facts…

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays