Mistake of fact and mistake of law as defenses to crime.
Compare and contrast mistake of fact and mistake of law as defenses to crime. What differentiates the two, and what effect might ignorance of fact and ignorance of law have on the defense of mistake?
Analyze the act requirement as it relates to inchoate crimes. What type of actions constitute an act sufficient to bring a charge of criminal attempt?
Compare and contrast the essential elements of a crime with those of strict liability crimes. How do they differ and what is the justification for the strict liability classification of crime?
What is the difference between the crime of conspiracy and the crime of solicitation? What similarities are there between the two?
Compare and contrast the crimes of assault and battery. What are the elements of each?
What is the difference between false imprisonment and kidnapping?
Assume that Bob buys a house that turns out to be a financial drain. One day, he decides to burn it down and has no intention of filing an insurance claim.
Is Bob guilty of any crime? Why or why not? What factors might change a persons mind?
each question 10-15 sentence, no reference needed
Sample Solution
“Mistake of fact” and “mistake of law” are both legal defenses that a defendant may invoke to challenge certain criminal charges. These defenses are based on the theory that the accused acted based on an honest mistake, and thus lacked the mental state or “mens rea” that the crime, by definition, requires. In a mistake of fact defense, an accused asserts that he/she did not have the intent to commit a crime because he or she misunderstood a particular fact. Under a mistake of law defense, a defendant shows that he/she did not have the mental state to commit a crime because of a misunderstanding of the law.
