The document discusses various crimes against property, including those involving destruction of property like arson and vandalism, and those involving theft of property like larceny, robbery, extortion, and burglary. It also discusses defenses a defendant may use such as mistaken identity, alibi, lack of criminal intent, self-defense, or arguing they were insane, intoxicated or entrapped at the time of the crime. Crimes against property decreased in the late 1990s as prevention methods improved but new computer-based crimes have emerged with technology.
The document discusses various crimes against property, including those involving destruction of property like arson and vandalism, and those involving theft of property like larceny, robbery, extortion, and burglary. It also discusses defenses a defendant may use such as mistaken identity, alibi, lack of criminal intent, self-defense, or arguing they were insane, intoxicated or entrapped at the time of the crime. Crimes against property decreased in the late 1990s as prevention methods improved but new computer-based crimes have emerged with technology.
The document discusses various crimes against property, including those involving destruction of property like arson and vandalism, and those involving theft of property like larceny, robbery, extortion, and burglary. It also discusses defenses a defendant may use such as mistaken identity, alibi, lack of criminal intent, self-defense, or arguing they were insane, intoxicated or entrapped at the time of the crime. Crimes against property decreased in the late 1990s as prevention methods improved but new computer-based crimes have emerged with technology.
crimes in which property is destroyed and crimes in which property is stolen or taken against the owner's will. During the late 1990s, there were fewer crimes against property, in part because Americans developed better ways to prevent these crimes Arson and vandalism are examples of crimes involving the destruction of property. Arson is the intentional and malicious burning of another person's property. In most states it is a crime to burn any building or structure, even if the person setting the fire is the owner. Vandalism is the willful destruction of or damage to another person's property. Effects of vandalism include broken windows, graffiti, and damage to cars. Vandalism is responsible for millions of dollars in damages every year.
There are many other categories of crimes that involve taking property against the will of the owner. Larceny is the unlawful taking and carrying away of another person's property with the intent never to return it to the owner. Most states identify larceny as either grand or petty. Grand larcenywhich is a felonyoccurs when anything above a certain value is stolen. Usually the amount is over $100. Petty larceny is a misdemeanor that involves the theft of anything of small value.
Shoplifting is a form of larceny Concealment is similar to larceny, but a separate crime. Concealment is when an attempt to shoplift occurs. Nearly half of all high school students report they have shoplifted within the last 12 months Robbery is the taking of property from a person's immediate possession by using force or threats, and is therefore also a crime against a person. The difference between larceny and robbery is the use of force Extortion, which is also called blackmail, takes place when one person uses threats to obtain another person's property. The threats may include harm to the victim's body, property, reputation, or loved ones. Burglary is the unlawful entry into any dwelling or structure with the intention to commit a crime. A person who is entrusted with property but then takes it unlawfully is guilty of embezzlement.
Other crimes against property include forgery, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. The Internet has led to an increase in cybercrime, which is any unlawful use of a computer or computer technology. Identity theft often involves the use of a computer. Cybercrime also includes illegal downloading, illegal copying of software, and the intentional spreading of a computer virus.
To win a conviction in a criminal case, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with the required intent. The defendant does not have to present a defense, but if he or she does, there are a number of possible defenses available.
When there is confusion or doubt about who committed a crime, the defendant may try to prove that there has been a case of mistaken identity and that he or she was not the person responsible for the crime. An alibi must be presented (evidence that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime occurred) The defendant may decide to try to prove that (1) no crime was committed, or (2) there was no criminal intent because the act was simply committed by mistake. Today, DNA testing can sometimes be used to prove whether or not the defendant was responsible.
In recent years, some people convicted of crimes have been able to prove their innocence because of this testing.
The law allows people to use deadly force when their own or someone else's life is in danger. The law also permits people to use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property, and others from harm.
Sometimes a criminal act may be considered excusable or justifiable.
This type of defense includes self-defense and defense of property and others. In this type of defense, the defendant acknowledges that he or she committed the act but argues that there are reasons the law should not consider the defendant criminally responsible. The law recognizes several reasons that may excuse a defendant from criminal responsibility. These defenses include infancy, intoxication, insanity, entrapment, duress, and necessity. Infancy: when a person is considered not yet legally responsible for their actions Intoxication: the defendant was so high or drunk at the time that they did not know what they were doing makes them unable to Insanity: based on the idea that the defendant could not tell right from wrong Example
Entrapment: the defendant commits the crime but say they were forced to do so by a law enforcement officer. Duress: the defendant claims they had to do something because of threat to their own life