Say 4 boys go to a building, one says lets go see what is inside. One of the other boys says he thinks its a bad idea so he stands outside while the other three go in. There is a safe inside and the others break into it. Could the boy who stayed outside and was not even on the property be charged with safecracking or would this be considered guilt by association. If neither of these apply what could he be charged with.
2006-08-19 03:09:26 · 4 answers · asked by cindy m 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Portianay is correct as to the general concept. Let's apply it to the criminal law context. While laws vary by state, we'll use the common criminal law (like they do in law school) for our examples.
Accomplice, conspiracy, solicitation, and guilt by association are all different. The first three are called inchoate (incomplete) crimes under the common law. The fourth (guilt by association) doesn't exist under US law.
Let's say, in your example, that it was Bob who actually physically broke open the safe and took the contents with the intent to steal. And he had the intent to do so when he broke in. The taking is larceny (under common law). The breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime inside is burglary.
One of the boys (Charlie) asks Bob to break into building, knowing that breaking in was illegal. That's solicitation. Merely the act of requesting someone else commit a crime completes the elements of solicitation, even with no further action by anyone. However, since Bob has not yet agreed, only Charlie is guilty of anything.
If Bob and one or more other people agree to commit a crime, and any one of them take any further steps towards accomplishing that goal (even preparation), that conspiracy. Agreement, plus some overt act. It doesn't matter if the safe ever gets robbed at all. The agreement plus overt act complete the crime of conspiracy, and anyone party to the agreement is guilty. Anyone party to the agreement can be charged with conspiracy. Bob can be charged with conspiracy, as well as larceny and burglary. However, anyone who refused to be party to the agreement is not guilty of any of those crimes.
Now your example. Bob's two friends go with him, encourage him, help Bob break into the building. But they don't actually do any physical act that would itself be criminal. They are still guilty as accomplices to Bob's criminal actions, because they had the intent that he commit the crime, and they provided some form of assistance or support. The fourth person, who did not encourage, did not participate, and did not provide assistance, is not an accomplice.
Let's tweak the example above, just to be clear. The fourth person (Dan), stands outside while the other three go in. In his mind he's not going to warn them if the police show up, but he doesn't call the police either. In fact, Dan doesn't even directly watch them commit the break-in. After the burglary is over, all four are walking down the street. The police, who got the entire incident on security camera come and arrest them all.
Under legal systems where guilt by association is allowed, Dan (our defendant) could be charged with guilt by association merely for being in the same place with those who were guilty, for not taking affirmative action to stop them.
However, in the US guilt by association is not allowed under our constitution. To be guilty without direct action, a person must either solicit (request), conspire with (agree with), or aid/assist someone else toward a criminal action. So, in the US, Dan could not be guilty merely being in the presence of others who committed a crime.
Why? Because under the US Constitution, freedom of association is a fundamental right. And mere association, without an assistance or agreement toward committing a criminal action, is not a crime. Nor (with a few narrow exceptions) does a private citizen have the duty to affirmatively act to stop a crime they witness. So, because Dan did nothing to assist or plan the crimes, above, he is not guilty of anything -- guilt by association is not permitted.
2006-08-19 03:47:11 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Guilt By Association Definition
2016-12-26 16:03:23 · answer #2 · answered by suzette 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty By Association Law
2016-10-05 08:21:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means that the people around you make you look bad since they are doing what is wrong (even if you are not). For example, let's say that your friend asks you to drive him to the bank, and when he comes back to the car, you drive off thinking everything is ok. Then a police car signals for you to pull over and come to find out your friend stole $5000 from that bank. Although you didn't do anything and had no knowledge of what he was doing, you could still be charged as an accomplice because you are deemed guilty by association. In this same way, although you aren't doing anything wrong, the guys sitting around you in the class are, and they are making you guilty along with them just because they sit close to you.
2016-03-22 17:10:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wikipedia:
Guilt by association, also known as the "bad company fallacy" or the "company that you keep fallacy," is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organizations that support it. Some examples are:
* Some charities have been fraudulent. Therefore, charities must be frauds.
* The Nazis supported eugenics. Therefore eugenics must be evil.
* Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Vegetarianism must be evil.
* Osama bin Laden is opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq must be a terrorist.
* The Ku Klux Klan supports this initiative. The public must therefore vote against it.[1]
The logical inverse of "guilt by association" is honor by association, where one claims that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or organizations that are related to it or otherwise support it. For example:
* Alice is a lawyer, and Alice thinks highly of Bob. Therefore, Bob must know the law.
* Aaron will make a good race car driver, because his friend is a good race car driver.
The boy in your analogy could possibly be charged with aiding and abetting, if he helped transport the group to the building. Otherwise, this becomes a legal question, and perhaps a police detective could help you.
2006-08-19 03:16:35 · answer #5 · answered by portianay 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
That makes him an accomplice to the crime. If he was a law-abiding citizen, he would have reported the crime to the police immediately. A kid waiting outside while a crime is being committed is called a 'lookout'.
However, he likely will just get a slap on the wrist if this is his first offense. Seek legal counsel.
2006-08-19 03:18:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
why is it boys, girls are just as criminal
seriously guilt by association means that people would think this was a bad kid because of who he was hanging out witl. criminal charges would vary by country, but I would think that at best he could be charged with accesory after the fact, but to most it would apear that he is a lookout and therefore a part of the whole thing.
2006-08-19 04:10:37 · answer #7 · answered by head_banger_yyc 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
if the boy knew what's going on inside the house and he didn't prevent the crime from happening, then he will be an accomplice...even if he didn't know what's going on inside but later when he knew that the other boys did a crime and he didn't report it, he will be guilty by association with the boys and the crime.
2006-08-19 03:17:50 · answer #8 · answered by jims_bong 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you are assisting in a crime....kinda like harboring an illegal alien. The law is the law. If you knowingly help another in committing a crime, you are guilty! You know like when someone makes a basket in basket ball, with the aid of another, it's called an assist!
2006-08-19 03:16:46 · answer #9 · answered by tripledigit 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes & He would be considered an Accomplice
2006-08-19 03:17:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋