Discussion

Running head: Criminal Law Criminal Law 7th February Question In their efforts to collect insurance proceeds, Tara and Andy committed arson. Based on the fact that the two business owners deliberately committed the offence with the aim of fraudulently getting financial assistance from the insurance company, this resulted to hard fraud. Two key aspects that make the offence to qualify as arson include the malicious and burning elements (Clarke, 1990). In order to have a substantial ground to charge the Andy and Tara, a fire investigation is prudent. This is undertaken after firefighters extinguish the fire. In this case, the firefighters died while they were undertaking their duties. This means that even though the actual cause of the firefighter’s death was the fire, Andy and Tara had no intention to commit a murder. However, their criminal offence of arson resulted to the death of firefighters. This implies that the Tara and Andy were responsible for the death. In this regard, as a district attorney I have basis to charge them murder.
Question 2
John and Mary intention was to rob a drug dealer. It worth to note even though they completed their mission, John was left behind resulting to the shooting and death of the drug dealer. Before the robbery, John and Mary had no intention to kill the drug dealer even though John was armed. The fact that the two had conspired to undertake the robbery, Mary’s conviction to robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery was correct. However, it was not collect to charge her for murder. On his part, John should have been convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery and murder.
References
Clarke, M. (1990). The Control of Insurance Fraud, A Comparative View. The British Journal of Criminology. 30. 1 (1990): 1-23.