Issues in Criminal Law Essay Example

Issues in Criminal Law Essay Example Issues in Criminal Law Essay Issues in Criminal Law Essay Issues in Criminal Law Name: Course: Instructor: Date: Issues in Criminal Law 1. Solicitation, with reference to United States laws, implies the crime that involves an incipient offense that constitutes an individual offering finances or influencing another person to execute a crime with the explicit intent that the individual solicited commit the crime (Herring, 2007). An example of criminal solicitation is prostitution. Prostitution involves collecting money from clients as payment for providing sexual services. It is considered a solicitation on the part of the client who offers financial incentives in exchange for sexual services. Furthermore, under United States laws, prostitution is a criminal offence thus solicitation is evident where the client influences the prostitute to commit an established criminal offence. Another crime that is considered solicitation is contract killing. Murder is a criminal offense under state laws, thus hiring a person to commit such an offense is solicitation because the hired killer has been influenced to engage in a crimina l act, and thus both are guilty. However, the complexity of solicitation has necessitated the need to include corroboration requirements by some states. The requirements are designed to deal with the potential injustices arising from solicitation charges. The corroboration requirements direct that the respective state substantiate its indictment by presenting extrinsic evidence to uphold the solicitor’s intent to advocate for criminal activity. The limitations are used by several states whereby solicitation charges need the corroboration of two witnesses or a single witness plus substantiating circumstances. For instance, the state of Iowa requires that the corroboration be demonstrated by clear and persuasive evidence. The state of North Dakota requires that the solicitant commit an evident act in advancement of the stated crime in retort to the solicitation (Herring, 2007). 2. Some conspiracy statutes insist on the production of evidence ascribing to the overt act by one of the co-conspirators. However, such a stipulation goes beyond the conventional designation of solicitation since it makes its elements bear a resemblance to those associated with conspiracy and attempt. Furthermore, other states have approved similar punishment for solicitation as conspiracy and even ratified sanctions that are indistinguishable to those for the accomplished crime, providing exception only for severe offences. Despite changing what constitutes solicitation, there is justification for such a requirement in the solicitant act. This is because solicitation is satisfactorily detrimental to the public hence it requires punishment without consideration to its repercussions. However, not every legal case requires the evidence of an overt act by ay of the conspirators. For instance, the most common conspiracy act to be addresses by the United States Supreme Court as not requi ring an overt act is conspiracy for money laundering. The conspiracy to commit money laundering does not require evidence of an overt act in advancement of the conspiracy, since there is no commission for the inclusion of an overt act as part of the conspiracy felony (Herring, 2007). 3. The Fourth Amendment advocates for protection against irrational searches and apprehension, together with requirement of any warrant to be judicially authorized and supported by reasonable grounds by the law executors to carry out a private or property search. The amendment does not require police officers to use excessive force while in the process of searching or arresting suspected individuals. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to use force only when executing an arrest, which is reasonable considering the circumstances. Consequently, the force should not be excessive such that it harms or endangers the suspect in questions since it will be in violation of not only the Fourteenth Amendment but also the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause. Therefore, under the Fourth Amendment, it is necessary to distinguish between the standard of reasonableness and the due process approach. Reasonableness of the force is determined by the prev ailing situations depending on the level of violence. On the other hand, the due process approach stated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides for independent fortification to confidential contracts and hence restricting various social and economic policies (Epstein Walker, 2007). Moreover, the approach prohibits federal and state governments form depriving any individual of their privileges without due process of law. The reasonableness approach compares to the due process approach since both put the rights of people over federal and state rights with interpretation to the law. 4. The defense of property involves a person using force to protect his or her own property against a different person who is threatening to contravene on the person’s right of possession in such property. The use of force to protect property is limited compared to the use of force to defend one ’s self or other individuals. However, it is important to assert that the force used in defense of property should be reasonable. The use of lethal force to simply defend property against another person’s interference with the same property is illegal however unlawful the infringement. In contrast, deadly force can be used if there is evidence of another use of the force. The use of force requires that the one using such force be the owner of the property or be in legal possession of it to warrant him or her, the ability to use force to protect it. However, use of deadly force is not allowed where the person does not possess the property in the event of protection. Still, a person who is not the owner can defend the property but use non-lethal force. The castle doctrine refers to the legal doctrine that provides citizens of America with the rights and privileges to utilize deadly force within the restrictions of their abodes for protection. In order to use deadly force, the occupant must prove that the intruder had the intent of committing harm and had the intent of executing felony. However, the occupant must have not provoked the intruder to commit dangerous acts. Make me day rules are part of the Castle Doctrine and they are for the protection of individuals from any criminal charge arising from the use of deadly force against intruders in the occupant’s home (Epstein Walker, 2007). References Epstein, L., Walker, Thomas G. (2007). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. Washington, D.C., United States: CQ Press. Herring, J. (2007). Criminal law. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.