This discussion focuses on the topic of accomplice liability and incomplete crimes and examines concepts that are closely associated with individuals who aid or abet criminal actions. In the case of Marisol, a live-in companion to Ron, a famous drug dealer, we discuss her possible conviction as an accomplice involved in his illicit business. By reviewing common law distinctions, current legal systems, and the Model Penal Code for their applicability, we aim to delve deeper into factors that formed Marisol’s position and are shaping her liability. This assignment examines in detail to provide a complete knowledge of the accomplice’s liability regarding unfinished crimes.
Can Marisol be convicted as an accomplice? Why, or why not?
In a certain jurisdiction, Marisol could get convicted as an accomplice, depending on the facts of the case. However, depending on the applicable jurisdiction and fact pattern of the case, Marisol may be found liable as an accomplice (Brown, 2001). If Marisol is found guilty of aiding and abetting in some jurisdictions using applicable case laws, she may be convicted as an accomplice. In various jurisdictions, an aider is one who deliberately and intentionally helps or enables the commission of criminal activity. Marisol’s contribution to packing drugs and guiding the buyers would imply assisting Ron in his drug dealing (Dyson, 2022). The module contextualizes the common law distinctions below. An accessory before the fact is where a person intentionally advises, procures, or instigates another to do a crime. This could include activities such as Marisol’s in packaging drugs and helping buyers. Yet, contemporary parties to the crime do herald aiders and abettors as principals. If Marisol’s actions materially advance Ron’s enterprise, she could be classified as a principal instead of an accessory.
In the light of the Model Penal Code (MPC), according to its provisions for accomplice liability, Marisol can be responsible, that is, liable for being an aider and abettor in Ron’s drug operation. MPC states that an individual can be found guilty of a crime by abetting another to plan or commit the offense. In terms of Marisol, engaging in the packaging of drugs while planning transactions may amount to deeds that lay under reaching MPC’s characteristics for accomplice liability (Garland, 2021). However, under the MPC’s stern standards, Marisol could be held responsible for her active participation in criminal enterprise while highlighting that liability is attributed not only to the principal actor but also to those parties who contributed to an act of crime.
Does it matter if Marisol was never in the house when the actual drug sales took place? Why or why not?
Marisol’s physical presence and her role in preparing and packing drugs during drug sales can be critical for the analysis of accomplice liability but may not determine it solely. Traditionally, common law identifies the principal actors from their accessories based on whether their presence – is actual or constructive (Garland, 2021). Regarding accomplice liability, an accessory before the fact—such as Marisol—involves intentional conduct in terms of guiding, encouraging, or ordering someone else into committing a criminal act without necessarily being physically present. If the distance of Marisol from certain drug transactions could be considered following principles governing common law, then the broader scope for accomplice liability is to exceed simple physical juxtaposition alone. The legislative analysis should address Marisol’s voluntary participation in the enterprise of crime, corresponding with contemporary legal approaches that consider her level and mode of assistance as abetting the University of Minnesota, n.d). If Marisol is treated as a second-degree principal, she might be guilty if she consciously helps commit a crime in her presence. Both physical presence at the crime scene and the constructive possibility of being there, if she was nearby and ready to help Ron in case he needed it, are the definition of presence (Garland, 2021). Thus, if Marisol was engaged in repacking the drugs and dealing with buyers despite not being physically present during sales therein, a constructive presence could be considered pertinent to prove her accomplice’s liability.
In current legal paradigms, there occurs a deviation from the ordinary common law distinctions, as most recent statutes regard aiders and abettors to be principals. Her liability is likely to be evaluated according to her substantive involvement in the criminal scheme, which does not necessarily follow a pure common law distinction (Garland, 2021). To illustrate this change, the Model Penal Code (MPC) highlights conducts aimed at contributing to or achieving an attempt to plan a crime in such a way that could evade physical presence (Karp, 1978). Marisol’s role encompasses drug packaging and interaction with buyers, which the MPC specifies as hyperinclusive, measuring what she contributed to criminal endeavors overall (Ball & Oberman, n.d). This shift in the points of view on law also highlights a general approach to accomplice responsibility within contemporary jurisprudence.
In conclusion, Marisol’s potential conviction as an accountable agent relies on the governing law and interpretation of her actions in line with aiding Ron to commit drug dealing. The determination can also include traditional common law principles as well as contemporary legal philosophy in evaluating her role of packing drugs and liaising with purchasers.
References
Ball, W. D., & Oberman, M. (n.d). Model Penal Code Section 2.06: Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/3553-balloberman-crim-law-casebook/resources/8.1-model-penal-code-section-206/#:~:text=(1)%20A%20person%20is%20guilty,is%20legally%20accountable%2C%20or%20both.&text=(c)%20he%20is%20an%20accomplice,the%20commission%20of%20the%20offense.&text=(b)%20his%20conduct%20is%20expressly,law%20to%20establish%20his%20complicity.
Brown, D. K. (2001). Third-Party Interests in Criminal Law. Tex. L. Rev., 80, 1383. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/tlr80§ion=45
Dyson, M. (2022). The Contribution of Complicity. The Journal of Criminal Law, 86(6), 389-419. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00220183221133439
Garland, N. M. (2021). Criminal Law for the Criminal Justice Professional (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN# 9781260254105
Karp, D. J. (1978). Causation in the Model Penal Code. Columbia Law Review, 78(6), 1249-1286. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1122025
University of Minnesota. (n.d). Parties to Crime. OpenLib@UMN. URL: https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/7-1-parties-to-crime/
write