In essence, crimes are set into two broad elements including ‘mens rea’ and ‘actus reus’. Apparently, ‘mens rea’ is committed when one has a criminal mind while ‘actus reus’ means to be involved in a guilty act. After the criminal incident that Joe, Larry, and Bob were involved in, they all are likely to face some sort of charges. As a result of their crime together, all three gang members have a different level of conviction. Joe appears to be the first in order of seriousness of their crimes while Larry comes second and Bob third. In light of this scenario, I will make use of the Illinois criminal code to interpret the overall charges for all the gang members.
Primarily, Joe appears present in a stolen car at the beginning of the scenario and, therefore, he becomes an abettor with class I felony particularly of theft in accordance to the state of Illinois (720 ILCS 5/ 16-1) ( Jonathon, 2017) . Additionally, Joe tells his gang members that he was going to shoot rival group members who were at their proximity. He pulled out a concealed weapon once the car they were in pulled over. At that moment, Joe had already committed felony given the fact that the weapon he used was known. As a result of the shooting, one person was killed and another injured on the leg. This is, therefore, under criminal against a person due to the injuries and the killings ( Stevens-Martin & Liu, 2017 ). In response to this action, Joe is likely to face execution, prison sentence, probation, or fine depending on the jurisdictions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Larry, on the other hand, drives a stolen car, therefore, becoming an accomplice in felony as well under the state of Illinois code of crime. In this light, Larry will face two counts of crimes, one being in possession of a stolen vehicle and the other for assisting another person to commit murder by driving the car while Joe was shooting their rivals. In this sense, he will face class A Felony-Misdemeanors under code (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/11-14) ( Jonathon, 2017) . Larry had already committed felony considering the fact that he was driving a stolen car. While he did not participate in the crime of shooting, he assisted Joe by driving the car to the rival gang members where they were shot at. Essentially, his ‘mens rea’ is the intent of helping another person to commit a crime while his ‘actus reus’ is driving a stolen car meaning that he had participated in stealing the car ( Stevens-Martin & Liu, 2017 ). According to the Illinois code of conduct, Larry might be charged to have committed either felony or misdemeanor depending on the ruling. In case he is charged with a misdemeanor, then he will face up to a one-year prison sentence or a fine.
In the scenario, Bob is seen to be against his friend’s intentions of attacking their rivals and, therefore, decided to exit the car. Despite the fact that he appears not to have committed any crime at that moment, he is an accomplice in a stolen car, thus, committing a crime against property. However, his act of exiting the car and not participating in shooting set him to a lesser crime under infractions. According to the Illinois state code of crime, infarctions is under code (625 ILCS 5/) ( Jonathon, 2017) . As a result of this crime, Bob is likely to be put under probation, jailed, or even fined depending on the jurisdiction of the court.
In a nutshell, criminal activities are often classified according to the level of its seriousness. In this light, different states have different ways of interpreting crimes as committed by individuals. As for Bob, Larry, and Joe, they are likely to face different charges ranging from a felony, misdemeanor to infractions depending on the jurisdictions.
References
Jonathon E. Monken, Acting Director. (2017). Just the Facts. The bureau of identification. Retrieved from (2018). Retrieved from https://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/chrinews_0910.pdf
Stevens-Martin, K., & Liu, J. (2017). Fugitives from Justice: An Examination of Felony and Misdemeanor Probation Absconders in a Large Jurisdiction. Fed. Probation , 81 , 41.
