Answer:
Put simply, a criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act. The agreement itself is the crime, but at least one co-conspirator must take an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under the federal conspiracy statute: The agreement by two or more persons is the essence of the crime.
Explanation:
Our question is this: What makes an act one of entrapment? We make a standard distinction between legal entrapment, which is carried out by parties acting in their capacities as (or as deputies of) law-enforcement agents, and civil entrapment, which is not. We aim to provide a definition of entrapment that covers both and which, for reasons we explain, does not settle questions of permissibility and culpability. We explain, compare, and contrast two existing definitions of legal entrapment to commit a crime that possess this neutrality. We point out some problems with the extensional correctness of these definitions and propose a new definition that resolves these problems. We then extend our definition to provide a more general definition of entrapment, encompassing both civil and legal cases. Our definition is, we believe, closer to being extensionally correct and will, we hope, provide a clearer basis for future discussions about the ethics of entrapment than do the definitions upon which it improves.
Answer:
understand go to the interent
ExplanationExplanationExplanation:
Stanford v. Kentucky, was a United States Supreme Court case in the year 1989 that sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the crime.
The Supreme Court in the year 2005,while handling the Roper v. Simmons' case ruled that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles, and thus it violates the Eighth Amendment to impose a death sentence on a youthful murderer who committed the crime before age 18.
Christopher Simmons, who was 17 at the time, committed a crime that led to a death sentence.
The Court said that the society views juveniles as categorically less culpable than the average criminal. The supreme court argued than a man only becomes culpable of any criminal act when he reaches the age of 18, and claimed at imposing a death penalty on a young child who is not old enough to take charge of his own actions is wrong.
The supreme court claimed that a juvenile who committed a heinous crime can be made to forfeit his fundamental rights rather than being murdered.
Answer:
Criminal laws at the local, state and federal level define criminal activities and establish legal punishments for those convicted of crimes like arson, assault and theft. Criminal law cases are only conducted through the criminal court system. In contrast, civil laws deal with the private rights of individuals.
Explanation:
