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.
It would be more dangerous if the cars bounced off. This is because the airbags will deploy if the car stops, leaving them only with the injuries they have. However, if they bounce off, they can hit additional cars or accidently fall off a cliff. The damage opportunity is worse if they bounce off.
I hope this helps! :)
Biological explanations are sometimes used in order to explain the reasons for a crime. However, although this might appear to be a good idea on the surface, it can actually carry a great variety of problems. When we accept biological explanations, we are giving great respect and consideration to science. Although this is not necessarily bad, excessive respect for science can make us this that this is objective, when it is not. It can also make us forget that scientific interpretations can be polluted due to bias, misunderstandings and misinterpretation of evidence, to name a few. This could affect policy development, policing, and the adjudication of offenders, as scientific concerns would be placed much higher up than ethical or social concerns.
