Talk:Accomplice

Merge or delete

Some sentences in this article look as though they come directly from Brittanica. I am quite sure they do. Rintrah 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved to Wiktionary, theres no need for this whole article defining one simple word.

rm tag since it has been almost a year, and only the tag nom has commented for merge.
talk) 15:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Question

Is this correct ? : "Aid S.21(1)(b) A defendant is a party to an offence where they do or omit to do anything for the purpose of aiding another person (the principal) to commit and offence. Refers to physical acts or omissions."

A person can surely only be party when they omit doing anything to impede the commission - viz they make no attempt to prevent or otherwise deter it.

Examinator (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplice Question

If, for example, a criminal were to hold you at gunpoint, (this is assuming you have no way to stop him) makes you break into a jewelry store and steal everything for him, put it in a sack and give it to him, are you liable in any way? And what would this be called?66.41.44.102 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved text from article.

I have removed the following text from the article, because while it may be correct, it remains largely unreferenced and not particularly relevant to the article. However, there may be information that is relevant to other articles, or that could be salvaged if rewritten. For that reason, I post it below:

Extended content

Courts often refer to aiding and abetting as an

U.S.C.

§ 2, aiding and abetting liability is available in all federal criminal prosecutions; however, the availability and extent of civil aiding and abetting liability varies from statute to statute.

Where available, aiding and abetting liability generally requires three elements: 1) an underlying violation by a

intent

to facilitate the violation; and 3) assistance to the principal in the violation.

As indicated by the

U.S. v. Peoni

100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d. Cir. 1938).

In 1982, the

capital crimes of other criminals, if there is no evidence that the accomplice knew or even suspected that the primary wrongdoer might commit murder. In Enmund v. Florida

, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), the accomplice was sitting in a car outside a house where a robbery was committed, and had no inkling that his partner in crime was going to kill the robbery victim.

Some states, including the state of California, have a system that distinguishes between an accessory, an accomplice, and a

accessory after the fact" is now just "accessory"). An accomplice is NOT a formal legal term in many states... it is "legal slang

", and denotes ONLY "an accessory or co-principal that agrees to testify against another principal in a court of law".

conspiracy

, no agreement necessary) – Actual assistance required and principal must know of Accomplice's actions.

Defendant must intend to commit or to assist another in committing (requires

specific intent

)

In some situations (the mental state might be that the accessory might think that the principal will commit the crime)

in some states the required mental state, or culpability, is the knowledge the principal’s mental state

Model Penal Code: a person who attempts to aid a person is guilty of being an accessory, regardless of whether the act or the attempted act occurred (§5.01.3)

culpable if they have a different mens rea
(e.g. not to permanently deprive one of goods)

Some courts take the position that any active assistance establishes a mens rea.

Common law categories

Principals in first degree
Principals in second degree— one who intentionally helps/encourages P-1 commit the crime and is present or constructively present at the scene (i.e. a lookout).
Accessories before the fact— one who procure counsels or commands the commission of a felony but who, unlike a principal in the second degree, is not present, actually or constructively, at the commission of the criminal act.
Accessories after the fact is defined as
Knowledge (not just suspicion) that a felony had been committed, and completed, by the assisted person;

Accomplices are liable for the crime itself and all other foreseeable crimes

Even if the principal has an
immunity
the accomplice can still be tried
accomplice is imputed with the mens rea of the actor (intent to commit or encourage the crime) (former lover looking for girl)
Both parties must have the same intent (relative helped robber rob store to help police catch him)
One is not an accomplice if they do not actively aiding or abetting or counseling the crime
Don't give people accomplice liability just because they are present, but they seem to be consenting

Mens Rea as to Result (in recklessness

cases)

An accessory before the fact can be liable for the final act (ship boiler blew up) – even for negligence
Participation can be an accessory An accomplice must have the same culpable mental state and intentionally aid in the commission (accident killing others while drag racing)
Actus Reus – Wilcox v. Jeffery
—The nature of the illegal act is immaterial (the jazz musician)

Sometimes just encouraging can be enough

Defenses to Accomplices liability

Withdrawal
Where an accessory has only counseled, commanded, or encouraged the crime, he may withdraw by communicating his changed intention to the other parties
If he has already given tangible aid, he must withdraw the aid or try to prevent its use (e.g., by warning the police).

'Note that it is not necessary that the crime actually be prevented by his actions; if he withdraws properly, he will not be liable even if the crime takes place.

Note, however, that the withdrawal must reflect a renunciation of the criminal purpose, not a mere determination that the odds of success are slim, or that one is afraid of getting caught. Also, such withdrawal must take place before the chain of events has become "unstoppable."

Defenses – ways of knocking out the mens reas

Legal infancy
Under seven— no criminal liability
Under fourteen— rebuttable presumption of criminal liability
Insanity— four tests == Most states the prosecutor has the burden of persuasion
M'Naughton Rule (traditional):
Two prongs
Defendant is not guilty by reason of
legal insanity
if he lacked the ability to know (and the time of his conduct) the wrongfulness of his action
to understand the nature and quality of his action— requires a disease of the mind
Accused’s sanity may be tested by his knowledge that his acts were legally wrong.

- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Complicity

The article on

Accomplice should be merged into Complicity as they both deal with the same concept. Complicity merits discussion; an accomplice is simply someone who engages in complicity. Pol098 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Closing this, interpreting lack of discussion over a year-and-a-half as a lack of interest in the merge. Reopen if desired. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - (@LukeSurl:) They should be merged, with errors corrected, inconsistencies removed, and sources cited. MBUSHIstory (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Accomplice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ

for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929194039/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-7.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-7.html#h-5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

English law does not distinguish between the terms "accomplice" and "accessory" and I think the author of this article has made this up. I don't have time to edit this today, but I'm going to nuke this soon. Richard75 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the stuff about Derek Bentley to the Aiding and abetting article, and the rest of this article was either already at that article or completely wrong. So I have redirected to the other article. Richard75 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]