1. What justifies criminalizing attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy? Because these charges are based on a person’s design on committing an offence, it allows for citizens to not be charged by their intent, but by the “substantial step” they took towards committing, ordering, or conspiring of their criminal act. In all three crimes if one decides to back out willingly before any overt act, or substantial act is made they can be exempt from any charges they would face if they had actually went through the act.
2. How does the criminal law distinguish between mere preparatory conduct and the overt act required for a criminal attempt? Can you think of a situation in which preparatory conduct might have the appearance of prospective criminal conduct but would not constitute a criminal attempt? The differences between criminal attempt, and preparatory conduct are very slim. In preparatory conduct, our textbook defines it as “actions taken in preparations to commit the crime”, which means the person has only planed the crime. With attempt you need the preparatory conduct, and a substantial step towards completing the crime to be charged with attempt.
3.…show more content… Should statutes defining conspiracy require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspirators’ agreement? Why or why not? If states were to include overt act in their conspiracy statutes, it would help the prosecution by stating that the conspirators actually took steps to complete the criminal goal, and can introduce that overt act as evidence to prove the conspirators guilt.
4. What distinguishes the offense of conspiracy from the crime of aiding and abetting, discussed in Chapter 4? On how conspiracy is different from aiding and abetting. In conspiracy, it is where two or more have an agreement to help commit a crime. While this is also present in aiding and abetting, the difference is in abetting one must show some actual participation in the criminal act to be