Assignment # 1
The most appropriate charges for Mason and Wooster are imprisonment. Imprisonment would work for them since they are young people whose behavior is easy to mend by instilling fear in them by jailing them and introducing them to the other hardcore criminals for their behavior to be streamlined. The involvement of the hardcore criminals would be to the threaten Mason and Wooster as molestation is common in jails. The code section that applies here is theft under chapter 15. It is most applicable as they would acquire the products would harm the owners business wise. The common law applicable in this case is criminal negligence which involves a criminal act resulting from the criminal intention or recklessness.
The possible defenses the two can give would be neglecting by their parents necessitating them to feed and search for themselves. The defense of involuntary service could be applicable, and intoxication. Having the knowledge that their parents could be charged for negligent, they would use to show that courts that their parents were the forces behind their actions. The code section to be applied is the defense and affirmative defenses; justification. The reason that I believe the defense applies is because it is the most applicable among the defenses provided. They would argue that they were under the influence of alcohol that led to them avoiding to pay the clerk.
There was a basis for charging the two with different crimes since they were aware of the influence of alcohol and they went ahead to consume it so as to have an excuse when asked the reasons that led to their behavior. Both Mason and Wooster were not under age and should, therefore, be convicted to for criminal offenses. There should not be excused as theirs was a fraudulent negligence and they are liable in law.
Assignment # 2
The appropriate criminal charges for Fred would be either capital punishments or life imprisonment. Killing of his wife was a criminal offence that is highly condemned by both the judges and the constitution. The constitutions outline that there is right to life and no one is above the law to take law into his own hands regardless of their social status. There are some exceptions for murder if it was for personal defense or if one of the parties is insane. The code section applied here are chapter 43 that talks about weapons. The police had the obligation to ascertain whether Fred had the license to own a fire arm. The other code to be applied would be chapter 45 under the criminal use of explosives and related crimes since murder was a criminal case. The common law applicable in this case is murder which is not connected to malice but has a percentage of premeditation.
The defense to any of the charges would be special force by persons with special responsibilities and the elements for the defense would be prohibition to kill. However, he would argue that he had the responsibility to relieve and ease the pain from his wife, hence the action. The reason for its applicability is because Fred was taking great care to his wife even when they were living together; therefore, it involved a lot of love. Suspicions would be avoided citing that there had been no conflict since they had managed to live together for 70 years. However, ignorance to law is no defense and he should face the full force of law.
If I were District Attorney, I would have imposed imprisonment on the old man to act as a lesson from taking law into his own hands. He was old enough to learn the hard way of being imprisoned with other criminals. The harsh capital punishment would have caused a lot emotional torture to the man due to his age.
Assignment # 3
The major offenses that Olin would be charged would be; an attempt to kidnap a person since it was against their consent, and the use of force in handling of issues is not allowed in law hence he was liable for that. Kidnapping and criminal restraint and it would be under the criminal court procedure, while the use of force would be under criminal liabilities and; elements of crimes.
The defense to the use of force charges would be duress. The love he had for her and her failure to reciprocate it pressured him to do all he could to get her. The penal code applied here is the criminal liability of the accomplices. this can be charged under the common law of duress which involves forcing one party to act in a certain manner without their consent.
However, Olin does not have a good defense as the act caused harm and torture to the victim. It was a crime to knock her down and use her condition to his advantage. He used her weakness and forced her into his car. Putting her into the trunk was unacceptable as everyone is entitled to fair treatment regardless of their actions.
Assignment # 4
The major offense Farnsworth may be charged with under the Maine Criminal Code is driving while under the influence of alcohol. I believe that the facts fit the element of this offense because he caused death and other bodily harm to himself. The law does not allow anyone to drive when drunk to avoid the rate of accidents in the country but Farnsworth acted against the stipulated law. This can be charged under the common law of manslaughter as his friend was killed although this was not the defendant’s intention limiting it from being murder.
Assignment # 5
As his defense, Albert will raise that the car was not in his possession at that time. The theory of criminal liability that the Prosecution could use to argue that Elbert is responsible for the fines is the normative theory. The theory states that irrespective of who is using the property at that particular time, the liability lies with the legal owner since he has the possession right. This case is under the common law of personal liability in which one is expected to keep track and care for anything under their ownership whether in their possession or not.
