Overview of the case
While the three actors in this case scenario can be prosecuted for various crimes, the legal positions of their convictions are entangled by the fact that the doctrine of complicity plays a prominent role. For instance, Jane Doe, the janitor is partly responsible for the crimes committed by Jack because she aids such crimes in the capacity of an accessory. Jim, on the other hand is a first degree accomplice, who commits a crime in which Jack Brown is the perpetrator. In such a crime, the accomplice could be held guilty of a greater crime than the accomplice (Kut 214). However, it is essential to note that with the doctrine of complicity in play, the players in a case could be convicted of crimes that they did not intend to commit, through a doctrine referred to as the Liability of accomplices for unintended crimes. This paper considers the crimes for which each individual actor will be convicted, the possible defenses, and the aggravating as well as the mitigating factors.
Jane Doe
Jane Doe will be convicted for two crimes, namely: fraud and murder. While Jane, the janitor did not actively participate in defrauding Mrs. Wealthy, she assisted Jack Brown and his crew in accomplishing their malicious mission. In this case, Jane did was fully aware that Jack Brown was up to no good. She was fully aware that Brown was going to commit a crime, but she did not know which crimes he was going to commit. In this case, therefore, she did not possess a guilty mind with regard to the specific crime. Nevertheless, she will be held as an accomplice in the capacity of an accessory. In criminal law, accessories are the individuals that are instrumental to the commission of a crime, but do not actively participate in the actual commission (Samaha 117).
The conspiracy relationship between Jack and Jane can be explained by the Pinkerton liability rule – a rule mentioned in the landmark Pinkerton vs. the United States case in the Supreme Court of the US (Kutz 209). In the case, two brothers – Walter and Daniel Pinkerton were charged with a conspiracy to commit a crime associated with the internal revenue code and ten other substantive violations. The court established that Daniel did not actually participate in committing the ten substantive violations. However, through the principle of complicity, he was charged as a conspirator of his brother Walter, and was charged with the same crimes. The same applies to Jane Doe who, in fact, assisted Jack and his crew commit the crime.
The second crime that Jane will be convicted with is common law murder. When Jim was sent to kill Jane, Jane pulled out a gun and shot Jim before he could pull out his gun. While it is evident that Jane killed Jim as a way of defending herself, there arises a mitigating factor. In this case, self defense becomes both a mitigating factor and a defense for Jane. While Jane did not have malice aforethought, the crime can be mitigated to manslaughter. In court, Jane can cite self defense as a worthy defense.
Jack Brown
Foremost, Jack will be convicted of theft because she practically stole the credit cards from Mrs. Wealth’s house. Secondly, Jack Brown will be convicted of forgery, because he and his crew, without the consent of Mrs. Wealthy, open another line in her name – this amount to forgery and impersonation. Along with these crimes, Jack will be charged with fraud because she illegally cons Mrs. Wealthy into gaining access to the house, and stealing the credit cards, which she later uses to withdraw all the life savings of the widow who is later forced to relocate to a homeless institution. The aggravating factors in Jack’s case revolve around that fact that he, in addition to committing the crimes, commits civil offenses and may be required to compensate Mrs. Wealthy for the loss.
When Jane asks for more money, Jack threatens to kill her. He sends Jim to go and kill Jane. Unfortunately Jim succumbs to a gun shot fired by Jane. Typically Jim could have been convicted of attempted murder. In this case, Jim is Jack’s accomplice. However, this is among the few cases where the accomplice is guilty of a greater offense than the perpetrator. In actual fact, Jim directly participated in the execution of the crime. Jack on the other hand, was the planner of the crime. This way, Jack will by the doctrine of complicity because the mental statuses of the two – Jim and Jack – were knowledgeable on the planed murder. However, had Jim lived, he would have been awarded the benefit of provocation.
Works Cited
Kutz, Christopher. Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
Samaha, Joel. Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. Print.
Scheb, John M, and John M. Scheb. Criminal Law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2012. Print.
