From the description, it is clear that Warfield was part of the group of men that aimed at committing a robbery when they were in a riding event. There is no indication that he was not for the idea of robbing the woman before the police intervened and stopped the crime. In fact, when the local security officers were patrolling the area, and observed the situation, Warfield and his fellow riders cum crime suspects fled the scene, although they were captured shortly. To determine whether the offenses about attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation may be applied to the suspect or not, it would be important to give insights into them.
In the context of criminal law, an individual commits a punishable criminal attempt if he or she aims at committing a crime, and he acts in a way that may contribute to the planned crime. Regarding criminal solicitation, an individual is thought to have committed it when he or she solicits, commands or makes another individual to engage in crime. Thus, the criminal justice system often views the suspect as the main driving force that could have caused the crime being looked into in a court of law. Here, the prosecution must argue that the accused had conspired with another or other accused persons to make a criminal offense happen at a specific date in the future. Unlike a criminal attempt, a trial involving suspects charged with solicitation does not have to prove that they took any significant steps to commit a crime.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation".
Based on the description, Warfield would be charged with both attempt and conspiracy. However, criminal solicitation would not apply here since the suspect did not command or make the other persons commit a crime. He would be charged with attempt since he was part of the group that intended to commit robbery, although the crime was not committed since it was prevented by the police. It is evident that the three components of criminal attempt characterize the case, which are an aim of executing a plan to commit a crime, an act of committing an offense, and a failure in successful implementation of the plan to commit the offense. This paper draws it precedence from People v. Rizzo, 246 N.Y. 334, 158 N.E. 888 (1927), which shows that the accused persons in the case spent most of their time patrolling the streets in NY in search of a clerk that they had aimed at robbing. Although the Court of Appeals based in NY did not find any proximity evidence to punish the suspects, Warfield would be punishable since he and the other men tied the woman’s children before they could take her to her workplace to take money from a safe. Thus, there would be enough evidence that the suspect and others took some significant steps to commit the crime.
Notably, Warfield would be charged with criminal conspiracy since he was riding with his accomplices when a plan to commit a robbery was hatched. There is no indication that he was not willing to assist his friends in robbing the woman. In fact, he also fled when his accomplices run away after being cornered by the police. Relying on the United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994), it can be stated that Warfield would not be declared innocent on the basis of terming the use of an agreement alone inadequate evidence to commit a crime. In the case, the Supreme Court in the US held that, through adopting the common law in defining criminal conspiracy, Shaban was punishable since he conspired to commit an offense.
