1. Define and generally discuss how general intent differs from specific intent. And when does "general intent "plus" become a factor in these three criminal law key term words. Explain the "actus reus" and "mens rea" regarding the terms. Give examples to enhance each of these important criminal law words.
1. General intent is the intent to commit an act that is criminal and forbidden by the statute. General intent is general because it is the minimum requirement of ALL crimes. This is the intent to commit voluntary act, omission, or possession that the criminal statute prohibits.
Specific intent is the general intent to commit the actus reus of crimes with the addition of the intent to cause a harmful result that is criminal. It can …show more content…
Samaha discusses "possession" as a criminal act and identifies the four types. Identify and define the four types and generally discuss to make for full understanding to their relevance to the criminal law term of possession. Give examples of each of these terms that support their definition.
2. The four types of “possession” as a criminal act are actual possession, constructive possession, knowing possession, and mere possession. Actual possession are items found on someone. For example, drug possession that people have in one’s pocket or in their hand.
Constructive possession are items that are banned that are not on a person, but in a place of their control. An example of this is having drugs in one’s car.
Knowing possession are items that possessors know that is in their control whether that be on them or in a place that is theirs. An example of this is someone buying methamphetamine and they knowingly know that they purchased meth. They do not have to know that it is a crime to have possession of it. One only need to know they have meth in their possession.
Mere possession are items that one possesses, but you have no idea what they are. An example is carrying your friends briefcase with drugs in it and you have no idea what’s inside is mere …show more content…
In criminal law, "criminal omission" is simply stated as the failure to act. Associated to this term is, failure to report, failure to intervene, and legal duty. There are two approaches regarding omission. The two approaches are "Good Samaritan" doctrine and "American Bystander Rule" and each of these two approaches have either legal or no legal duty to become involved. Define each of these criminal law key terms and provide examples that support their respective relevance to criminal omission. Generally discuss these terms to make for better understanding. Which of the two do you support -- defend your reasoning and identify the negative and positives of each. (Answer the question using the textbook and supplement the response by citing outside sources (the web) to expand the textbook information).
3. Criminal omission is where one is supposed to act because of their legal duty, but they do
1. General intent is the intent to commit an act that is criminal and forbidden by the statute. General intent is general because it is the minimum requirement of ALL crimes. This is the intent to commit voluntary act, omission, or possession that the criminal statute prohibits.
Specific intent is the general intent to commit the actus reus of crimes with the addition of the intent to cause a harmful result that is criminal. It can …show more content…
Samaha discusses "possession" as a criminal act and identifies the four types. Identify and define the four types and generally discuss to make for full understanding to their relevance to the criminal law term of possession. Give examples of each of these terms that support their definition.
2. The four types of “possession” as a criminal act are actual possession, constructive possession, knowing possession, and mere possession. Actual possession are items found on someone. For example, drug possession that people have in one’s pocket or in their hand.
Constructive possession are items that are banned that are not on a person, but in a place of their control. An example of this is having drugs in one’s car.
Knowing possession are items that possessors know that is in their control whether that be on them or in a place that is theirs. An example of this is someone buying methamphetamine and they knowingly know that they purchased meth. They do not have to know that it is a crime to have possession of it. One only need to know they have meth in their possession.
Mere possession are items that one possesses, but you have no idea what they are. An example is carrying your friends briefcase with drugs in it and you have no idea what’s inside is mere …show more content…
In criminal law, "criminal omission" is simply stated as the failure to act. Associated to this term is, failure to report, failure to intervene, and legal duty. There are two approaches regarding omission. The two approaches are "Good Samaritan" doctrine and "American Bystander Rule" and each of these two approaches have either legal or no legal duty to become involved. Define each of these criminal law key terms and provide examples that support their respective relevance to criminal omission. Generally discuss these terms to make for better understanding. Which of the two do you support -- defend your reasoning and identify the negative and positives of each. (Answer the question using the textbook and supplement the response by citing outside sources (the web) to expand the textbook information).
3. Criminal omission is where one is supposed to act because of their legal duty, but they do