Paer 1-
Suppose that a longtime friend shares with you that she was planning on robbing your local credit union. She seems very sincere. Two weeks later while watching the news, you learn that the local credit union was robbed. Are you an accomplice to the crime?
While at work, you notice that one of the managers leaves the restaurant with a lot of cash in their pocket. This is highly unusual because managers should make deposits in the morning. Suspicious, you accompany him to a local bar after work to find out more about the source of the income. After a few Glenlivet and waters, he tells you about his scam. "I've embedded a software program that automatically charges each customer for chips and salsa, which are supposed to be free, if they complain, I take the charge off the bill, if they don't say anything I rerun all the receipts take the charge off and keep the difference." The restaurant serves 300- 500 tables a night. The next day, your boss tells you, "Are you ready to makes some extra cash? Make sure every table has plenty of chips and salsa!" Have you committed a crime?
Part 2-
Do you really think that preparation to commit a crime should be punishable? Is it not possible, that" even at that stage the person has not decided to commit the crime and is only "testing the waters" with no firm decision yet made?
Suppose that in a bathroom wall you find an inscription that says "Needed: 1,000 Freshmen to riot in front of and burn the R.O.T.C. Building. Call 210-226-3232 if interested." Is the person who wrote the inscription soliciting? What do you think? Why?
Suppose that in a bathroom wall you find an inscription that says "Needed: 1,000 Freshmen to riot in front of and burn the R.O.T.C. Building. Call 210-226-3232 if interested." Is the person who wrote the inscription soliciting? What do you think? Why?
Part 3-
What do you think would be the consequences of a legal system in which the defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof fell upon him?
What do you think would be the consequences of a legal system in which the defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof fell upon him?
Years ago, the son of the ambassador of a European country was driving around Washington, DC, completely inebriated and killed an innocent pedestrian. The local DA was unable to prosecute him because of his dip¬lomatic immunity. What do you think? Should diplomats and their families not be held responsible for their crimes?