Quiz 7: Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability
Brief summary of the case: Mr.D killed his wife as she refused to make love with him.Mr.D choked his wife to death.Mr.D assured that his wife is dead, went downstairs, and asked Mrs.U, his mother to sleep in the living room in his couch.Mrs.U could see the rooms, kitchen and the bathroom from the couch.Later on Mr.D took his dead wife to the bathroom. Mrs.U saw his son taking his dead wife to bathroom.Mr.D started to dismember his wife in the bathroom and put the body parts in a bag.Mr.D dumped the bag containing the body parts of his wife in the nearby lake.Now, Mr.D and Mrs.U made up a story that his wife left somewhere without intimating to the children and to him. 1) The facts that made Mrs.U a helper of the crime committed by Mr.D: Mrs.U and the wife of Mr.D were not in good terms before the murder took place.Mrs.U told her son that she would move out of the house, as his wife does not like her.Mr.D told his mother that he would take his wife for scuba diving and kill her so that it will look like an accident. Mrs.U did not object for this.On the day of murder, Mr.D told his mother that he is going to finish her tonight.Mrs.U did not object for it.Later on, that night Mr.D killed his wife and dragged her to the bathroom to dismember her.Mrs.U witnessed the act of her son and pretended as if she saw nothing. The above facts prove that Mrs.U is an accomplice and helped Mr.D to commit a murder and kill his wife. 2) The facts to prove to jury that Mrs.U participated in the murder of Mr.D's wife: Wife of Mr.D and his mother had conflicts between them.Mr.D's mother told him that she is going to leave the house since she had some disputes with his wife and nothing went right between them.Mr.D's mother had no opposition when Mr.D told that he would kill his wife by taking her to scuba diving so that he would frame the incident like a murder. Mr.D's mother did not stop his son when he killed his wife and dismembered her in the bathroom and threw the bag in to the lake.She supported his son without stopping him and acted like she knew nothing.These facts are enough to prove to the jury that Mrs.U has participated in the murder. 3) The viewpoint of court regarding to the case: The police investigated the case and arrested Mr.D and his mother Mrs.U.The police enquired to Mr.D about the murder.Mr.D told the police that he told her mother about his vengeance towards his wife and his plans to kill his wife.Mrs.U did not take it seriously and asked him not to be kidding about killing Mrs.D. On the day of murder, Mr.D told his mother that he would kill his wife tonight.Mrs.U did not react seriously and thought that his son is kidding as usual.Mrs.U did not have any idea that he would kill his wife that night.Hence, Mrs.U cannot be charged on the grounds for helping Mr.D to kill his wife. 4) The opinion of Mr.X on the act of Mrs.U: According to the opinion of Mr.X, Mrs.U is responsible of the acts done by Mr.D.There were problems between Mr.D's wife and his mother and nothing went right between them.So, Mr.D's mother told him that she is going to find a new home. Mr.D told his mother that he would make his wife's murder to look like an accident by taking her to scuba diving and kill her.On the night, when the murder took place, Mr.D's mother acted as a spectator without stopping Mr.D.So, Mr.X thinks that Mr.U is also responsible for the crime committed by Mr.D. Conclusion: It is obvious that Mr.D had disclosed his ideas of killing his wife many times to his mother.On the day of murder Mrs.U saw through her own eyes that Mr.D dismembered his wife and she kept quiet.It is the duty of Mrs.U to stop Mr.D from doing it, if she does not want Mr.D to kill his wife.Hence, Mrs.U deserves punishment for her acts.
Brief summary of the case: Mr.D gave lift to Mr.C in his automobile.Mr.C impersonated himself as a female and drove with Mr.D.Mr.D was not aware of the fact that Mr.C is a male.They both drove the bike to Mr.C's uncle house.There Mr.D expressed that he want to make love with Mr.C thinking that he is a female.Mr.H (uncle of Mr.C) told that he wants to meet his wife for the same reason. The three went to Mrs.H place where Mr.H and his wife were having an argument.Suddenly, Mr.H took a knife, stabbed his wife, put his wife in the car, and drove away.Mr.D was driving the car.Mr.H told Mr.D to stop the car in some distance, so that he and his wife would get down from the car.Mr.D drove the car from the place and Mr.C got down from the car after some distance. 1) The following are the elements of accessory: The term accessory refers to a person who had witnessed a crime and he has sufficient evidence that the particular person had committed the crime, but he helps that person to escape from the arrest or punishment.In the instant case, Mr.D and Mr.C are the accessories. Mr.D and Mr.C witnessed the murder of Mrs.H and they kept quiet.Mr.H dragged the body of his wife inside the car and got down along with the body after some distance.This proves that Mr.D and Mr.C witnessed the murder and took no initiative to report to the police or any neighbors.Hence, the above facts prove that Mr.C and Mr.D are the accessories. 2) The following are the facts stated by the court: • Mr.C did not leave the car or protested to leave the car when he witnessed the murder. • Mr.C did not persuade his friend Mr.D to take the car and leave the place. • Mr.C did not take any actions to stop the murder. • Mr.C did not make an emergency call to the health care or police department after Mr.H got into the car. • Mr.C went home without reporting the incident to the police or hospital. Hence, the court stated that Mr.C is an accessory in the instant case.The statue mentions that any person who had witnessed a crime and he has sufficient evidence that the particular person had committed the crime, but he helps that person to escape from the arrest or punishment is an accessory.The provisions of the statue clearly match with the acts done by Mr.C. 3) The conclusion of court on the evidence of the elements of the statue: The court had enough evidence to support the elements of the statue.The court concluded that Mr.C had committed a crime of not informing about the murder incident to the police and hospitals.Mr.C helped Mr.H to escape from the clutches of police.Hence, Mr.C deserves a punishment for helping a criminal. 4) Opinion of Mr.X on the decision of court: Mr.X agrees to the decision of the court for finding Mr.C guilty for helping a criminal.Mr.C witnessed the murder of Mrs.H and he kept quiet.Mr.H dragged the body of his wife inside the car and got down along with the body after some distance. This proves that Mr.C witnessed the murder and took no initiative to report to the police or any neighbors.Hence, the above facts prove that Mr.C committed a crime to help a criminal to escape from the law. 5) The following are the reasons that the decision of majority stands firm than the dissent: The majority had pointed out the exact facts as to why Mr.C is guilty in the instant case.The reasons are, Mr.C kept quiet after witnessing the murder committed by Mr.H.Mr.H after killing his wife, go into the car with the aid of Mr.C and escaped. This is enough to prove that Mr.C is also a partner of the crime committed by Mr.H and he is likely to be punished along with Mr.H. Conclusion: Mr.C deserves punishment for the crime of letting a criminal to go out from the clutches of police and law.Mr.C had every chance to report the murder to the police and other authorities, but he did not do so.Hence, Mr.C is accused for accessory.
Brief summary of the case: Corporation Z, a college fraternity arranged a 'rush' in their fraternity house in order to attract new members.The fraternity arranged two female strippers to perform in the event.The senior members of the fraternity permitted the guests to provide strippers with dollar bills to ensure the continuation of performance.The fraternity brothers also said that strippers would provide more entertainment, if the guests offered more money. The fraternity brothers permitted the guests to have oral sex with the performers.Mr.AS, a nineteen-year-old guest testified that the soda machine in the fraternity house dispensed beer bottles to guests.The court convicted Corporation Z for the illegal sale of alcohol and encouraging prostitution.The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. 1) Elements of vicarious liability according to the law: According to the law, the illegal or unlicensed sale of alcohol and promotion of prostitution towards a minor is an offence.The criminal justice system convicts the organization that promotes prostitution and the illegal sale of alcohol.Delivery or sale of alcohol to a person who is below the age of twenty-one and to an intoxicated individual is unlawful. The law prohibits the licensee from allowing a person, who is below the age of twenty-one to consume or possess liquor.Corporation Z failed to control the prostitution because guests paid money to strippers for oral sex.The organization cannot escape from its criminal liability, because it provided favorable atmosphere for its employees to violate the law. 2) Facts deciding whether the officers of Corporation Z were acting within their authority: Corporation Z was in trouble because of the unlawful act performed by its employees.The corporation was acting through its agents or employees.The higher authority thought that their agents were working within the scope of their agency imputed to the corporation.Unfortunately, the agents were not performing within the scope of the organization. The agents illegally distributed alcohol to the people who were aged below twenty-one and promoted prostitution.The fraternity brothers instigated the guests to indulge in prostitution by paying dollars to female strippers.Female strippers led the guests to the mattress and gave oral pleasure many times in exchange for money.These facts show that the agents of the corporation acted within the scope of their authority.The members or the fraternity on behalf of the corporation allowed oral sex in exchange for money. 3) The Supreme Court's argument upholding the trial court's conviction in each offence: Courts argument was against the act of the corporation.The illegal sale of alcohol and prostitution is unlawful and the fraternity members supported the same.The fraternity members did not initiate any action to control the situation. Instead, the fraternity members supported the acts by permitting to use strippers in exchange for money.The members arranged alcohol in the soda machine.Though the corporation knew that the guests were aged below twenty-one, they did not try to control these unlawful activities. 4) Mr.X's opinion on the act of Corporation Z: Corporation Z promoted prostitution and the sale of alcohol to a minor.It is because the fraternity members informed the guests the availability of alcohol in the soda machine.The fraternity brothers permitted the guests to pay the strippers for more entertainment.Many times the guests engaged in oral sex with the strippers, but the agents never controlled them. Conclusion: The sale of alcohol to a minor and promoting prostitution is an offence.In this case, the court convicted Corporation Z for the unlawful act done by its members..The members of the fraternity promoted prostitution and the alcohol consumption of minors. The law prohibits the licensee from allowing a person, who is below the age of twenty-one to consume or possess liquor from a licensed shop.