Preparatory Crime: Guilty In Court Cases

1248 Words5 Pages
Preparatory Crime For a case to be inchoate the person that is accused of the crime must have a guilty mind, or a mens rea, to have all conspiracy against them repelled. Though for them to be guilty of all crimes they must have had intended for the crime to have happened. For a murder to be intent the defendant must have intended for the victim to have been killed. In a case of inchoate, for the defendant to be cleared you need proof of mens rea. Though they may have threatened to kill them. There must be evidence of a weapon in their possession that they intended to use for the crime. Doctrine of merger has been abandoned in many cases, because the defendant can be convicted of attempt or solicitation. If a defendant commits a single act…show more content…
Deppen had pleaded guilty in court. "Deppen had motioned, through his attorney, that a woman who had contacted police about his plan to kill the victim had coerced him." Says Lancaster’s Online Newspaper. Deppen, had followed her commute to work daily, and stalked her to store in the nearby areas of her home. His ex-fiancée wasn’t sure as of how he knew where she was until she spotted a device underneath her vehicle. Bomb Squad determined it was a tracking device that Deppen used to track her using his cellular…show more content…
Asked if she knew what it meant to kill someone, Weier purportedly responded, “I believe it’s ending a life and I regret it.” She also reportedly told the police, “The bad part of me wanted her to die, the good part of me wanted her to live.” Geyser reportedly stated that what she did was probably wrong. Both girls believed so much in the fictional character they thought that killing their classmate would show their devotion. Many people in court asked for mental tests to be done on both girls, since they haven’t done anything wrong before, the presence of a mental issue is possible. Geyser's attorney fought for the case to be fought in juvenile court. Though their brains are still developing they are still held liable for their actions. The Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the imposition of the death penalty on those who committed their offense while under the age of 18 in its 2005 decision, Roper v. Simmons. The 5-4 decision was based on clear scientific evidence that fundamental differences exist between the brains of juveniles and adults; differences which make it much more difficult for young people to make informed decisions and understand the consequences of violent actions. The Court subsequently outlawed the imposition of mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles. (Williamson,

More about Preparatory Crime: Guilty In Court Cases

Open Document