discussion conspiracy and party to a crime peers responses
PLEASE CREATE RESPONSE FOR PEER 1 POST AND PEER 2 POST:
Review the posts of your fellow learners and respond to at least two. In your response posts, you must do one or more of the following:
- Ask an analytical question.
- Offer a suggestion.
- Elaborate on a particular point.
- Provide an alternative opinion supported with research.
Be sure to support your initial post and follow-up posts with scholarly examples from the module readings and additional literature where appropriate. You must cite all references according to APA style.
My conclusion to the scenario of John and Donaldâ€™s store robbery is this, from the time they arrived at the store John knew that he was going to rob it actus reus (act). He held up the clerk with a gun and took money; mens rea (intent). Although Donald had no knowledge, until after the fact when John returned to the car, he did not jump into action. Actus reus (failure to act) comes in to play. He should have immediately turned John in, but instead, he drove John home and cut all ties. In this case he becomes a conspirator to the crime because he had knowledge of the crime but said nothing. Whether he was given money or not.
The facts that establishes Johnâ€™s criminal intent for armed robbery and possession of stolen goods are, John donned a mask before entering the store and pulled out a gun when committing the crime.
EXAMPLE OF RESPONSE TO PEER 1 POST:
Great post! I agree that Donald should have immediately turned John in for his armed robbery. However, because Donald did not participate in the actual robbery itself, aid in planning, or plan to coverup up the crime, I would not consider him a conspirator (Garner & Anderson, 2018). He is an accessory after the fact due to his knowledge of the robbery after it happened and him providing John with a drive home. Donald had not had â€œmens reaâ€ in driving John to the store or even driving away (Garner & Anderson, 2018). John still had a pistol in his possession and I think Donald did act accordingly for his own safety. If Donald called the police after leaving John at his home, he would avoid the accessory charge.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2018). Criminal Law (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
PEER 2 POST:
After reading our weekly discussion assignment and textbook I believe that Donald should be charged as a party in this crime. No, Donald did not know that John was going into the store to commit robbery, however, once John got into the car Donald knew a crime had been committed and he drove John away from the scene. Donald knowingly took John away from the scene and failed to report the robbery to law enforcement. Whether John gave Doanld any money before, after, or never is irrelevant due to Donald aiding John in escaping, therefore hindering apprehension. â€œPersons who aid a person after a crime has been committed are no longer treated as parties to the crime, and thus have no derivative liability. These persons can be charged with other crimes, such as Model Penal Code Â§ 243.2, Hindering Apprehension or Prosecutionâ€ (Gardner & Anderson, 2018).
Johnâ€™s criminal intent for armed robbery is seen all over this scenario. John put on a ski mask before he entered the store in order to hide his identity. John also brought a pistol with him to the store. John knew what he was going to do all along. John was later apprehended with the marked money from the robbery, showing he was in possession of the stolen money.
Gardner, T.M., & Anderson, T.J. (2018). Criminal Law (13th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage