The criminal law enables the government to successfully prosecute persons who are involved in an act of crime. In this context, a crime can be considered as an unlawful act because it violates the principles of the criminal law. In the United States, the principles of the criminal law and associated penalties are established by the state and federal governments, but there are aspects of the criminal law that are discussed in all the states as similar (Allen, 2005; Scheb & Scheb, 2011). These aspects include the tradiitonal principles as ‘actus reus’, ‘mens rea’, and ‘corpus delicti’ among others, types of homicides, types of principals, and types of defense, for instance. From this point, the criminal law is an effective tool in order to prescribe the principles of the socially appropriate behavior and to regulate any violations in the area of the law and social stability because the criminal law dictates the norms according to which persons are accused of causing harm, killing, or stealing (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2013). Therefore, the quality of the criminal law system directly affects the stability, order, and organization in the society because the main purpose of the criminal law is to provide principles of justice according to which it is possible to protect the rights and interests of citizens in the United States.
Crimes are usually discussed in terms of two components which are ‘actus reus’, or a guilty act, and ‘mens rea’, or a guilty state of mind. To state that the prosecuted person is guilty, the prosecutor needs to present the evidence to prove the presence of ‘actus reus’, or a physical act of crime, and the presence of ‘mens rea’, or the person’s intent to commit a crime (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p. 67). These aspects of the criminal law are extremely important for individuals because there are many offenses committed without any intent because of the person’s lack of knowledge in the sphere (Dubber & Kelman, 2009, p. 44). In this context, even if the physical crime is proven as it is in situations with the unintended possession of the other person’s property, it is possible to vary the penalty (Scheb & Scheb, 2011, p. 89). The prosecutor must also convince the jury and judge of the facts related to the crime. The necessity to prove both ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ protects individuals and businesses from the negative publicity in cases where the guilt of prosecuted persons is not obvious.
The person can be accused of a crime of a different level of seriousness, depending on the character of the guilty act. The concept of a ‘felony’ combines the most serious offenses like a murder or rape. The less severe offenses like a theft are called misdemeanors (Allen, 2005, p. 45; Cole et al., 2013). These types of crimes differ significantly in their impact on an individual’s life. Thus, the persons who committed a felony can be imprisoned for a year or more when the persons involved in misdemeanors can be punished with fines and stay in prison no more than one year (Dubber & Kelman, 2009). Thus, the individual and social life of persons committed a felony becomes significantly changed because in many states of the country, these people have no right to adopt a child, to enter the armed forces, and to obtain certain professions. However, the other side of this law is the possibility to punish criminals differently, depending on seriousness of their crimes. This aspect is important for protecting the social stability.
Referring to the concepts of ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ as well as to the classification of crimes depending on their seriousness, it is important to discuss the aspect of proving the guilt in detail. Corpus delicti can be discussed as the evidence of the fact that the crime was committed. The other important aspect of corpus delicti is the necessity to prove the involvement of the party into the crime (Scheb & Scheb, 2011, p. 54). This procedure is important for persons who became unwillingly involved in situations when they found a corpse or became victims of a person’s death, for instance. In this case, the authorities need to provide the evidence to state that the death resulted from the criminal activity and the person was involved in this activity. As a result, the rights of innocent persons become protected.
The other important concept is the doctrine of intended results related to individuals who cause injuries to third parties in an attempt to cause the unlawful act (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p. 92). In this context, any bad results of a crime differ in their definition from the idea of intended results (Dubber & Kelman, 2009, p. 78). For instance, a person may be intended to harm character X, but he actually injures character Y. He may be charged with an offense relating to X and Y depending on the fact that the actions were intended and the observed results were intended. However, the charge may be inappropriate if the level of harm to Y is not described adequately for sentencing purposes. In this context, the doctrine of intended results aims to protect the rights of persons who become victims of other individuals’ intended harmful actions.
One of the largest classifications in the criminal law is related to the classification of homicides. Homicide can be divided into a number of categories according to different factors. Thus, homicides can be divided into justifiable homicides, willful homicides, felonious homicides, robbery-related homicides, and negligent homicides. This division allows stating the principles of criminal justice in the United States and avoiding the provision of inappropriate penalties for criminals (Dubber & Kelman, 2009). For instance, the reference to justifiable homicides is important when such cases as the armed assault or rape are discussed. All the aspects associated with negligent homicides should also be discussed in detail in order to state the justice in the society. In this context, the intended or crime related homicides differ from the above-mentioned ones. Willful homicides and felonious homicides are the most seriously punished felonies because of the murders’ intentions to commit a homicide (Scheb & Scheb, 2011, p. 112). For instance, the punishment for justifiable homicides and felonious homicides will be different, and there are cases when a person committed a homicide because of the risk for one’s life is acquitted. The other socially controversial category of homicides includes family homicides. Thus, filicides occur when parents kill their children. Femicides occur when an intimate partner kills a woman. Parricides occur when children kill a parent. Femicides are separated in a category because in most cases, the intimate partner homicides are committed by men. However, both men and women are involved in child homicides, and this fact can be discussed as a social problem (Walston-Dunham, 2011, p. 114). In this context, the effectively developed criminal law for these types of homicides is necessary to protect the social environment for such vulnerable social categories as women and children in families.
While discussing homicides and murders as unlawful homicides, it is also important to examine the concept of the malice aforethought. In the case of a murder, the malice aforethought means that the offender is willing to commit the crime because of the present ‘mens rea’. The offender can express malice, or the offender may intend to cause the grievous bodily harm, as the implied malice (Allen, 2005, p. 326). The malice aforethought is important to discuss not only murders, but any cases of the intended harm (Walston-Dunham, 2011). There situations when criminals kill persons intentionally, with the malice aforethought, in order to gain from their property or insurance. The inner intention of a person can be associated with the material factor, but there is the malice aforethought, and the offender would be accused of the murder.
Referring to the cases of homicides, the specialists often discuss them from the point of causation. Thus, the cause-in-fact approach to causation is under discussion when actual causes of the act are present. The actual cause refers to the connection between the harm in question and the actual act of the criminal. For instance, the actual cause of a woman’s death is the man’s actions if he intentionally ensnared her in the forest belt, raped, and left there. In this case, the woman can die from exhaustion or from the attack of wild animals. However, there is also the proximate cause element that requires the prosecutor to convince the jury that the actual crime act could cause the harm (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p. 72). Referring to the previous example, it is possible to assume that the woman can become the victim of the car accident when she would try to leave the forest. In this case, the proximate cause should also be discussed with references to the causes of a woman’s death. The concepts of the cause-in-fact and proximate causes are important to state the principles of the criminal justice in society in order to avoid providing guilty persons with the same types of punishment for different types of felonies.
There are also many situations when more than one person is involved in committing a crime. Those persons who have the intention to commit a crime can ask other persons to participate in the process. Solicitation liability arises if a person convinces another person to commit a crime (Scheb & Scheb, 2011, p. 89). An individual is discussed as guilty of solicitation even if the convinced person refuses to participate in the criminal activity (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p. 87). In this context, it is important for the social security that those persons who refuse participating in criminal acts choose to inform the legal authorities and the police about the intentions of the potential criminals. The concepts of conspiracy and attempt are closely related to the solicitation issue. Thus, attempt requires that the person is oriented to committing the crime (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p. 88). In spite of the fact that the attempt related to killing the public figure can be unsuccessful, the fair penalty should be followed, and much attention should be paid to finding all the participants of the conspiracy in this case. Conspiracy is related to the criminal intention when a number of persons plan to commit a crime. The problem is in the fact that conspiracy requires more proof than the solicitation and attempt because of the necessity to find all the persons involved in the conspiracy and prevent the further attempts.
The individuals who do not take part in the criminal activity, but who are present during the organization period and after the actual crime, are referred to as accessories. The accessory before the fact assists the perpetrators in conducting the criminal activity. Conversely, the accessory after the fact works to prevent the law enforcement agencies from the effective investigation of the crime (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p. 87). These types of assisting the criminals are also different in relation to the expected punishment. In most cases, the accessory before the fact is punished along with the criminals performing the crime (Walston-Dunham, 2011). However, the cases of the accessories after the fact are usually discussed separately because their activities are often noted as less harmful. This approach is rather debatable because there are different cases and roles assumed for the accessories after the fact (Scheb & Scheb, 2011, p. 105). Thus, if family members are involved in a criminal activity, they can be prosecuted according to different principles, while depending on the level of their participation in the criminal activity (Dubber & Kelman, 2009). Those family members who work to block investigation procedures are usually punished with references to less severe measures in comparison with the crime organizers and performers. The prosecutors also take into account the situations when persons act to protect their other family members. For example, a teenager’s parents who allow their son staying at home after the son has been involved in a robbery are often not liable as the accessories after the fact.
While discussing accessory before and after the fact, it is also necessary to refer to the organizers and performers of the crime who can be discussed as the principals of first and second degree. The principal in the first degree is an individual who committed the crime and needs to be tried before the other participants of the criminal activity (Gardner & Anderson, 2014, p. 100). The principal in the second degree is a person who participates in committing a crime while assisting the principal in the first degree (Cole et al., 2013, p. 118). For instance, two business partners can plan to kill their third partner. If one person actually shoots the selected victim and the other partner is present during this moment and sees the act of shooting, the first person is discussed as principal in the first degree, and the second participant is discussed as the principal in the second degree (Walston-Dunham, 2011, p. 45). Depending on the actual actions of the principal in the second degree, these persons can receive the same or different penalties.
Having discussed different types of crimes, it is also important to focus on different criminal defenses. Although the offender is entitled to a number of charges upon committing a crime, there is a provision for defense. A defense is a legally acceptable reason that may compel an individual or organization to be engaged in a criminal activity (Cole et al., 2013, p. 89). A complete defense is a type of defense where the defendant successfully proves the case. The defenses to a crime are divided into categories including the defenses asserting lack of capacity, justification, use of force, and relying on constitutional rights. Defenses asserting the lack of capacity involve infancy, intoxication, and insanity. The defense for infancy is provided for children. However children above fourteen years are regarded as adults in many states, and this defense is not applied in this case. The duress is a defense to crime asserting that a defendant was forced to commit a crime (Dubber & Kelman, 2009, p. 108). Self-defense is also often discussed in the context of defense to crimes. There are also situations when the defendant may commit a crime as a result of mistake. The mistake must be of a reasonable nature (Cole et al., 2013). For example, the defendant might be engaged in a sexual act with a person who is regarded as underage without the knowledge of the fact. The defendant knows that the individual is over the age of consent before the crime (Emanuel, 2007, p. 56). The examples are numerous because the defendant can also commit a crime as a result of being frightened because of the threats of death to him or his family. It is a responsibility of the jury and judge to discuss the cases in detail and to prevent accusing of persons in relation to whom the principle of defense works (Scheb & Scheb, 2011, p. 108). There are also many cases of partial defenses that include provocation, diminished responsibility, and intoxication. In order to refer to the principles of the criminal justice in these cases, it is necessary to pay much attention to discussing all the aspects of the crimes in detail. Partial defense only reduces the charges, but the decisions regarding these cases should be discussed and presented carefully.
Referring to different aspects of the criminal law, it is important to state that the criminal law system followed in the United States is oriented to protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens from the criminal and harmful activities. The discussed concepts and supporting examples illustrate the idea that the criminal law in the United States is developed to provide the legal authorities to take all the aspects of the cases into account in order to avoid prosecuting innocent persons and to provide the reasonable penalties for criminals. As a result, all the discussed concepts directly influence the life of individuals in the society. The reason is that that conditions associated with different crimes can cover not only individuals but also their families. In this case, it is possible to speak about the protection of individuals and families as cells of the society. A range of criminal activities discussed in this paper are also associated with the businesses because there are many homicides and conspiracies that are result of conflicts observed in the business world. From this point, if the principles of the criminal law are actively and accurately followed in the legal system of the United States, there is a chance that the accentuated legal procedures can be discussed as guarantees of the social stability and order.
References
Allen, M. (2005). Textbook on criminal law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (2013). The American system of criminal justice. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Dubber, M. D., & Kelman, M. (2009). American criminal law: Cases, statutes, and comments. New York, NY: Foundation Press Thomson/West.
Emanuel, S. (2007). Criminal law. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (2014). Criminal law. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Scheb, J. M., & Scheb, J. (2011). Criminal law. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Walston-Dunham, B. (2011). Introduction to law. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.