Why do people
commit Crimes?
Theories of Criminology
Who are Victims of Crime?`
 >25% of those 15 years or older
 Theft, assault, robbery = 50% of crimes
 Household crimes = 35% of crimes
 Equal b/w men and women (avg. 18.5%)
 Youth 15-24 report greatest victimization (21x more
likely  violent crime over seniors)
 Those out at night
 Low household income (greater risk of violence, less of
personal theft)
 Urban dwellers
 Those known to the perpetraitor (mostly lone males in
violent crime)
 >60% crime goes unreported
 Men perceive safety to be more at risk then men
Causation vs. Correlation
 No one theory can explain what causes crime,
however factors that exist in a great number (i.e.
correlation) of criminals include:
Age
 Peaks between 15 to 18
 Serious offenders often start
earlier and continuing past 18
Gender
 Males are far more likely to
commit crimes
 The male/female gap has been
decreasing
Poverty
 Social status and income have no direct effect
on criminal behavior
 Evidence exists to suggest that poverty can
indirectly contribute to deviance by the
conditions related to it
Substance Abuse & TV (?)
 alcohol use (alcoholism among criminals is substantially higher than
in the general population);
 drug use (significantly higher incidence of drug addiction among
criminals than in the general populace and it can also lead to more
serious crimes related to the drug trade – e.g. drug trafficking, theft,
assault, extortion, and murder)
 Television viewing (some evidence suggests that TV violence leads
to more aggressive behaviour)
Other risk conditions that lead
to child delinquency:
 Receive little affection/rejected by parents
 Inadequately supervised by parents who fail to
teach them right from wrong
 Grow up in homes with conflict, marital discord
and/or violence
 Social isolation
Classical Theory
 Crime is caused by the individual free will.
 Human beings are rational, and make decisions
freely and with understanding of consequences.
 Persons rationally choose actions that will bring
them pleasure.
 Crime is an immoral form of behaviour.
Positive Theory (Positivism)
 Criminals are born not made
 This is an example of nature, not nurture
 Focused on biological and psychological
factors to explain criminal behaviour
Positivist Theorists
 Cesare Lombarso (1835 – 1909)
 Italian physician and psychiatrist
 What did he think/do?
 Studied cadavers of executed criminals in an effort to
determine scientifically whether criminals were physically any
different from non-criminals
 He believed that people were born criminals and facial
features of criminals included things like enormous jaws and
strong canine teeth.
Pictures of
murderers
that Lambarso
believed
carried facial
features
tied to criminal
activity.
Murderer
Sean Penn
See any similarities!?
Does this mean Sean Penn is a Criminal?
Positivist Theorists cont…
 In the 1960s, positivist criminologists argued that criminal
behaviour lies in abnormal chromosomes
 The XYY theory argued that violent male criminals have an
abnormal XYY chromosome (XY is the normal pattern in males)
 However, researchers soon found out that this was not true and
that criminals had normal chromosomes and that non-criminals
also had abnormal chromosomes.
 The Positivist theory of criminals being born rather than made
died out. There were moral implications with this.
Modern Day Example
 Philippe Rushton
 University of Western Ontario
psychology professor
 Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and
Behavior (1995)tries to show that East
Asians and their descendants average a
larger brain size, greater intelligence,
more sexual restraint, slower rates of
maturation, and greater law abidingness
and social organization than do
Europeans and their descendants, who
average higher scores on these
dimensions than Africans and their
descendants.
Psychoanalytical Theory
 Sigmund Freud believed that all humans have
criminal tendencies.
 It is through socialization that these tendencies are
controlled during childhood.
 If a child has an identity problem with his/her
parent, this problem may cause the child to direct
its antisocial tendencies outward and thus
become a criminal.
 Psychological Human Development also comes
into play here
John Wayne Gacy Jr. –
How did he grow up to be a
murderer?
 Theorists consider moral behaviour to be self-regulated through
mechanisms of self-evaluation where one can approve or
disapprove irresponsible or inhumane behaviour
 It clear that Gacy showed a lack of moral behaviour and hence, in
the act was not able to disapprove his behaviour adequately to
avoid it completely.
 Bandura (1977), states that most violent acts and inhumanities
are perpetrated by people who, in other areas of their life are
quite considerate in their behaviour.
 This describes Gacy’s behaviour perfectly as he was very friendly,
well liked by the neighbours and was largely involved in the
community; no one would assume he was capable of such
casualties. Moreover, Gacy illustrated moral disengagement by
justifying his murderous acts
Cont…
 According to Sigelman and Rider (2009), children who are raised in
abusive environments can grow up to become abusers and to
learn that violence is an integral part of human relationships.
 Hence, it can be argued that Gacy’s immoral, violent and murderous
adulthood is rooted in the violence from his childhood. Furthermore,
abusers are often insecure individuals with low self-esteem
 Furthermore, abusers are often insecure individuals with low selfesteem. Abusers can form negative internal working models of
themselves and others, which are most likely rooted in unhappy
experiences in insecure relationships with parents and negative
experiences in romantic relationships
 although his father hurt him physically and emotionally, Gacy
desperately sought his father’s approval but was never able to
achieve it. This insecurity led him to failed marriages and more
interestingly, to his attraction to hiding himself under clown costumes
and make-up in order for the children in the community to like him.
Sociological Perspectives:
 Sociological Theorist: Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)
 People who live in cities feel more anonymous and isolated (as
compared to rural life).
 No longer restrained by the strict norms of society (in rural life)
and given the anonymity in a big city certain individuals turned
to crime.
 Durkheim is also a father of functionalism (i.e., everyone has a
role/function in society and that is how society runs/functions.
 Durkheim believes that criminals have a role and are needed for
society to function
 If there were no crime, it would mean that everyone in society was
the same and agreed on everything. This is no ideal and society
would be too comforting – people need a release.
Sociology cont…
Ecological School
 Believed that criminal behaviour was fostered and
encouraged in certain environments.
 They studied a number of poor neighbourhoods and
concluded that communities that suffered from high
rates of poverty and social disintegration were more
likely to condone criminal activity than more affluent
neighbourhoods.
Sociology cont…
Social Conflict Theory
 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels argued that the capitalist
society encouraged crime as people competed for
resources and wealth.
 Our society protects those with power and property. As a
result, people who are economically disadvantaged are
more likely to be punished by our justice system. The only way
to solve the crime problem is to eliminate the capitalist
system.
Social Psychological
Perspective
 Social psychology is the study of the relations
between individuals and people.
 They are interested in how ‘regular’ people can
commit atrocious crimes.
 Stanley Milgram was specifically interested in how
Nazi’s were able to commit horrible acts of
genocide – he focused on how people could do
this just by following orders.
 Milgram Experiment
 Torturing and killing innocent civilians
…In relation to torturing
article…
 Displacement of responsibility and dehumanizing the victim are two
categories of moral disengagement
 Bandura (1999) states, “People behave in ways they would normally oppose
if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the consequences of that
behavior. Under these conditions, people view their actions as the dictates
of authorities rather than their own actions.”
 According to reports in the article, the torture and abuse of the civilians was
approved and facilitated by the White House
 According to Bandura, (1999) person can justify torture by loosing empathy
for the victim while convincing himself that the victim lacks human qualities.
 Furthermore, once the victim is dehumanized, he is no longer viewed as a
person with feelings, concerns or hopes but as a subhuman object that is
easily tortured (Bandura, 1999).
Contemporary Theories Of
Crime
Strain Theory (Sociology)
 Current societies stress the goals of acquiring wealth, success,
and power.
 However, the means to achieve these goals require education
and economic resources.
 These means are frequently denied or unavailable to those
who are economically disadvantaged or have little
opportunity for formal education.
 Example: The Wire, Season 4, Episode 8
 Young African American youth yearning for the chance to work
on the streets to sell drugs because they know this is the only way
they can make money.
Consensus Theory
 Consensus theorists
assume there is a
universal definition of right
and wrong and that
criminal law reflects this
consensus
 Argue that criminal laws
prohibit behaviours that
society agrees are
harmful
Socialization
 Suggests the key
influences leading to
criminal behaviour are
found in upbringing, peer
groups, and role models
Biological Trait Theory
 Argues that some human traits such as
intelligence, personality, chemical and
genetic makeup may predispose
people to engage in criminal
behaviour
 Research suggests that the following
can cause a person to become a
criminal
 Poor diet (“Twinkie Defense”)
 Influence of hormones (androgens)
 Exposure to drugs/alcohol in the
womb
Neurophysiological Theory
 Focus on the study of
brain activity and how
neurological dysfunctions
are connected with
criminal activity
 Twin studies

Indictable Offences
 Serious offences
 Name recognizes that cases are prosecuted following
an indictment (accusation) by a grand jury
 Historically called felonies

Summary Conviction Offences
 Petty crimes
 Name recognizes the more summary (simplified)
procedure for prosecution of cases
 Historically called misdemeanors


All offences in the Criminal Code of Canada
(CCC) are either indictable or summary
conviction offences – some can fall under
both
Hybrid Offences
 Punishable on either indictment or summary
conviction
 Discretion is left to the Crown Attorney as to how
to prosecute the case

Indictable Offences


235. (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an
indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Summary Conviction Offences

175. (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene
language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
…
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Hybrid Offences

266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Criminal Code Classification
Example of Offences
Part II Offences Against Public Order
Unlawful assemblies and riots, ss. 63 and 64
Part III Firearms and Other Offensive Weapons
Possession of prohibited weapon, s. 90
Part IV Offenses Against the Administration of Law
and Justice
Personating peace officer, s. 130
Part V Sexual Offences, Public Morals, and Disorderly
Conduct
Sexual exploitation, s. 153
Part VI Invasion of Privacy
Interception of private communications, s. 184
Part VII Disorderly Houses, Gaming and Betting
Keeping gaming or betting houses, s. 201
Part VIII Offences Against the Person and Reputation
Murder, s. 229
Part IX Offences Against Rights and Property
Theft, s. 322
Part X Fraudulent Transactions Relating to Contracts
and Trade
Fraud, s. 380
Part XI Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of
Certain Property
Arson, s. 433
Part XII Offences Relating to Currency
Possession of counterfeit money, s. 450
Mitigating and Aggravating circumstances

Mitigating circumstances (is not a full defense) are
factors that reduce the seriousness of the offence or
serve as partial excuses. They generally reduce the
sentence, sometimes even the charge.
Example: You are charged with drinking and driving but
you have a perfect driving record and you volunteer
at a shelter.

Aggravating circumstances are factors that make the
offence worse. They work against the accused.
Example, you are caught shoplifting and it is the 7th time
you have been caught in 3 years.
Offences against the person (people)

(Approximately 10% of all crimes reported.

Homicide






Murder (1st degree, 2nd degree)
Manslaughter
Infanticide
Counseling or aiding suicide
Assault
Sexual Assault
Assault



Intentionally using force against another
person without consent, threatening
someone, and displaying a weapon while
interfering with their movements.
Shaking a fist may constitute assault!
Criminal negligence: a reckless individual.
Assault



(Simple) Assault (max 5 yrs) – like a hit, slap,
push, or punch etc. that does not result in
lasting bodily harm. (not more than a bruise or
scratch)
Assault causing bodily harm (max 10 yrs) –
Assault resulting in harm such as broken limb.
Aggravated Assault (max 15 yrs) –Assault
resulting in maiming or disfiguring permanently
affecting victim.
Assault: the Legal Perspective
The offence: an assault is an unwelcome interference with a person. It is a form of
violence.
► The offence of assault varies from Simple Assault to Aggravated Sexual Assault.
►
This definition sets out the elements of the offence.
►
Assault causing bodily harm occurs when:
►
a person intentionally uses force of any sort against
another person
this is done without the victim's consent or agreement
the victim is injured and the injury is something more
serious and long-term than a scratch or small bruise.
►
►
►
Source: section 267 of the Criminal Code
What does the word intentionally
mean?
…well, from case law, we know what it is not!
This is what two courts have said about intention:
►A
reflex action lacks the necessary intent to
constitute an assault.
Case source: R. v. Wolfe (1974), 20 C.C.C. (2d) 382 (Ontario Court of Appeal)
► An
accused does not have to intend to cause bodily
harm. What is necessary is that a reasonable person
would be able to predict that his or her actions posed
a risk of bodily harm.
Case source: R. v. DeSousa (1992), 76 C.C.C. (3d) 124 (Supreme Court of Canada)
How does the court decide if a victim
has given consent?
This is what two courts have said about consent.
► A person cannot consent to being injured in a
serious way.
Case source: Jobidon v. The Queen (1991), 6 C.C.C. (3d) 454 (Supreme Court
of Canada)
► If
the victim provokes the assault, the courts have
said that the victim consented to the assault.
Case source: R. v. Oppal (1984), 43 C.R. (3d) 365 (B.C. Provincial Court)
► Of course the response to the provocation must be reasonable. Being slightly
provoked does not give right to smashing a person’s head.
► All elements of the definition of the offence
need to be proven by the Crown in order to
convict a person of this offence.
► Those elements that are in doubt become
legal issues.
► For example, whether or not the victim
"consented" is often a legal issue in cases of
assault.
What does the law say about acting
in self-defence?
Here is how the defence is defined:
►Self-defence occurs when:
► a person attacks you when you have done nothing to
provoke or cause the attack
Source: section 34 of the Criminal Code
► you
defend yourself from a clear and present danger
with only with as much force as is necessary to resist
and you do not intend to cause death or grievous
bodily harm
Source: section 34 of the Criminal Code
How can a judge know how much
force was necessary in the
circumstances?
► This
is a difficult decision to make and it cannot be
made without looking at all the facts. However the
following interpretation by a court suggests the court
does not demand a completely rational reaction:
►A
person under attack is not expected to stop to
weigh or measure his or her reactions perfectly or
precisely.
Case source: R. v. Baxter (1975), 33 C.R.N.S. 22
R v. Martin (1985) 47 C.R. (3d) 342 (Que. C.A.)
►An accused person who is successful in
arguing self-defence will be acquitted of
the charge.
Sexual Assault



Sexual Assault (max 10 yrs) – non-consensual sexual
touch (does not have to be violent) including rape (which
is not always violent).
Sexual Assault Causing bodily harm (max 14yrs) – Sexual
assault, and causing some bodily harm but not grievous.
Aggravated sexual assault (max life) – sexual assault and
wounding, maiming or disfiguring.

(if a firearm is involved, there is a mandatory minimum 4 yrs)
Sexual Assault
the Legal Perspective
How does the law define a sexual assault?
Sexual assault occurs when...
 a person intentionally "applies force" to another person
&
 this is done without the victim's consent or voluntary
agreement
&
 sexual activity is involved.
Source: section 265 of the Criminal Code. See also s. 271, 272, 273.
 Thus it is a criminal offence to engage in sexual activity
with another person who does not consent.
What does "apply force" mean in a sexual
assault situation?
 Think of "force" as "physical contact". There does
not have to be a violent demonstration of force.
Touching certain body parts, for example, also fits
the definition of "applying force".
What does "sexual activity" mean?
The part of the body touched, the nature of
the contact, the surrounding circumstances
including what was said - these are all
relevant factors in determining if there was a
sexual aspect to the "physical contact".
The defence: in many cases the accused
person argues that the victim consented, or
agreed, to the sexual activity.
Most victims will say they didn't consent, and most
accused persons will say the victim did consent.
Does the law help people interpret the meaning of
"consent"?
 The first source to consult for a definition of what
is and isn't "consent" is the Criminal Code.
 ...note that the Code uses the word "complainant"
rather than "victim".
Consent with regards to sexual
activity
Consent: the voluntary agreement of the
complainant to engage in the sexual activity
in question
Source: section 273.1, subsection (1) of the
Criminal Code
No consent is obtained where
The complainant is incapable of consenting to the
activity;
The complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack
of agreement to engage in the activity; or
The complainant, having consented to engage in sexual
activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of
agreement to continue to engage in the activity.
Source: section 273.1, subsection (2), clauses (b), (d) and (e) of the
Criminal Code
 2011 May SCC Ruling: When the complainant is asleep
or not conscious, regardless of giving advance consent.
This is often referred to as the “no means
no” law. The last clause states that if
consent is given but then withdrawn
during the activity, then this must be
taken as a NO.
One can imagine that there are situations where there
is confusion about this issue and the accused person
honestly thinks the other person is consenting.
What then?
When this happens, the issue changes. The
complainant says there was no consent. The
defendant’s reply is that even if there was no
consent, he/she had an "honest but mistaken" belief
that there was consent. The courts have accepted,
in the past, such an explanation as a valid defence.
More recently the courts have been limiting the use
of "honest belief" as a defence.
When is "honest belief in consent"
a legitimate defence?
This is clarified in the Criminal Code:
Where an accused alleges that he/she believed that the complainant
consented to the conduct...a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient
evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute
a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence
relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to
consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.
Source: section 265(4) of the Criminal Code
There must be sufficient evidence which, if believed,
would constitute a defence.
It is not enough for the accused to simply claim the
he/she honestly believed there was consent. (It has
to be proven)
Homicides (Death caused by another)

Murder: 1st degree, 2nd degree

Manslaughter (2nd degree murder may be
reduced to manslaughter- if provocation can be
proven.)

Infanticide (Mother kills baby within days of giving
birth – altered mental state)
Murder: 1st degree, 2nd degree

First degree murder is a planned and
deliberate murder.

Or: the killing of any peace officer (Police, Jail guard)
Or: when someone is killed while you are committing certain serious
indictable criminal offences like arson, kidnapping, high jacking,
sexual assault.

Max life, parole possible after 25




Second degree murder is a an
intentional (but not planned) killing.
This charge can sometimes be reduced to a manslaughter
charge.
Max life, parole possible after 10
Manslaughter

Manslaughter definition:
 Unlawful killing of a human being without malice or
deliberation.


Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a
manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The
distinction between murder and manslaughter is said to have first
been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Dracon in the 7th
century BCE.[1]
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal
culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is
particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires
either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice
aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to
result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of
any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.
Nelson and Jimbo get into a
fight…




Nelson punches Jimbo in the jaw, knocking him
backwards and causing him to hit his head on the
edge of the pool table.
Jimbo dies later that night from internal bleeding
caused by the severe concussion.
Nelson wanted to hit Jimbo but didn’t mean to kill him
but Jimbo died as a direct result of Nelson’s actions.
Nelson will be arrested and charged with
manslaughter.
Infanticide


A charge that can only be applied to a
woman who has recently given birth and
causes the death of her child a short time
after giving birth.
Carries a maximum of 5 years in prison.
Criminal negligence causing
death-(article)


Negligent or reckless behaviour that
results in the death of another.
Max life
Assisted Suicide


Assisted suicide (Euthanasia, consensual
homicide, physician assisted suicide)
Carries a maximum sentence of 14 years
in prison.
What kinds of behaviour could be
considered provocation for an
attack?
► Provocation
includes provocation by blows, words
or gestures.
Source: section 36 of the Criminal Code
► Not
always clear, and is subjective. Case by Case.
Defenses
Mental disorder
(results in an NCR (not criminally responsible)
acquittal)
 Automatism (sleepwalking pg.305)
 Self defense
 Intoxication (controversial and limited)
 Mistake of fact (accused was mistaken about the
circumstances. Ex. Didn’t know they were buying
stolen goods)
 Compulsion (s.17 of Criminal Code. There are
only certain minor criminal offences that may be
excused with compulsion)

Don’t Write this Down
•Remembering that the purposes of criminal
law can be stated as:
•protection of one’s own safety
•protection of the safety of others
•protection of property
•preservation of standards of decency
•preservation of public order
•preservation of people from exploitation
•Examine the following offences and state
which of the above purposes of criminal law
apply.
•Do you agree that the offences should all be
criminal offences? Why?

Any act or omission, the doing of which is an offence
under federal legislation
 The Parliament of Canada has sole authority over criminal
law
 Examples of federal laws that make certain conduct
“crimes” include: the Criminal Code of Canada; the Youth
Criminal Justice Act; the Narcotics Control Act; the Food
and Drugs Act; the Income Tax Act

Behaviors that violate provincial laws (e.g. the
Highway Traffic Act, the Liquor Licence Act) are not
true criminal offences – they are known as Provincial
Offences -or- Quasi-Criminal Offences -or- Regulatory
Offences




Literally “guilty act”
The physical component needed for the
commission of a crime
In some cases, failing to act can be
considered the actus reus – called “omission”
(e.g. failing to stop at the scene of an
accident)
For an act to be criminal it must be voluntary
and conscious



Literally “guilty mind”
The mental component of criminal conduct
Working definition: “a guilty mind exists
‘where a person intentionally does the
forbidden act with the knowledge of all the
wrongful circumstances which the statute
seeks to prohibit.’”
The mental component of criminal conduct contains
the elements of intention (subjective intent) and
knowledge (objective intent)
 Subjective Intent: the accused’s state of mind at the
time of the commission of the guilty act

 Recklessness and Willful Blindness
▪ forms of Subjective Intent
▪ an individual may not intend the consequences of his/her actions
but is still seen to have the subjective intent needed for criminal
liability if he/she: understands the risks and persists anyway; or is
reckless

Objective Intent: determines what a reasonable
person would have understood, perceived, or
foreseen in the circumstance

Nina hurls a china vase across the room and it smashes against the wall.
We may say that Nina had subjective intent to break the vase if we have
the evidence of her desire or purpose to smash it. Her knowledge that
the vase was made of fine chine and that its breakage was highly
probable meant that she was, at least, reckless in the throwing of the
vase. Even if it could not be proven that she desired the actual result, her
recklessness (knowing the risk and proceeding anyway) would be
sufficient to give her subjective intent. But, what if Nina had not
bothered to investigate the vase’s physical composition? It could be
argued that she willfully closed her mind to the question of the vase’s
physical properties, suspecting it was china but not wishing to learn the
truth. Finally, assume there is no evidence that Nina either knew or
suspected that the vase was made from china or that it would break if it
struck the wall. If a reasonable person, however, would have foreseen
the consequences of Nina’s actions, Nina had objective intent in spite of
her failure to appreciate the risk.


Recap: Mens rea is the required mental
component of criminal conduct
Essentially mens rea looks at degrees of
intent
Actus
Reus
(voluntary or
conscious act
or omission)
Mens Rea
(intentional,
knowing,
willful,
reckless,
careless)
Crime


Some offences require fewer elements of
mens rea and some offences require none at
all
The majority of Criminal Code offences
require full mens rea


The SCC recognized 3 categories of offences:
Mens rea offences
 Those in which mens rea must be proved

Strict liability offences
 Those in which it is unnecessary for the prosecution to
prove mens rea (the doing of the act is sufficient for
guilt), but the accused has the chance to prove that
he/she took reasonable care to avoid committing the
offence
 Offences dealing with “public welfare” (e.g. health
and the environment)

Absolute liability offences
 Those in which there is no opportunity for the
accused person to exonerate themselves by
showing that they were free of fault.
 Offences in which the legislature made clear that
guilt would follow the mere doing of the
prohibited act.
No Mens Rea
• Absolute liability
offences
Objective
Mens Rea
Subjective
Mens Rea
• Strict liability offences
• Negligence offences
(including intent,
recklessness, and
willful blindness)
• Crimes carrying
substantial social
stigma and criminal
sanctions

For a crime to occur there must be a completed
actus reus
 i.e. there is no murder where the victim does not die
Intent to commit a crime may have existed but
there was no completed act
 This is the opposite of absolute or strict liability
offences
 Because the law in Canada does not intrude into
people’s minds, mere thoughts are not illegal



Once an act is defined as an attempt to
commit a crime, that attempt becomes a
criminal act
CCC Section 24(1):
 Every one who, having an intent to commit an
offence, does or omits to do anything for the
purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an
attempt to commit the offence whether or not it
was possible under the circumstances to commit
the offence.


An agreement between 2 or more people to
commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by
unlawful means
It is not necessary for the intended act to be
carried out


Counseling is when a person gets or solicits
someone else to commit a crime
CCC Sec. 21(1):
 Every one is a party to an offence who
 (a) actually commits it;
 (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of
aiding any person to commit it; or
 (c) abets [encourages or supports] any person in
committing it.

CCC Sec. 23
 (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one
who, knowing that a person has been a party to
the offence, receives, comforts or assists that
person for the purpose of enabling that person to
escape.

Note – assisting your spouse to escape is not
accessory after the fact












Criminal Conduct
Causes of Crime
Private Harm Principle
Public Harm Principle
Legal Paternalism
Legal Moralism
Indictable Offence
Summary Conviction
Offence
Legal Definition of Crime
Actus Reus
voluntary act
Mens Rea
Criminal Equation
Subjective Intent
Recklessness / Willful
Blindness
 Objective Intent
 Strict and Absolute
Liability
 Incomplete Crimes



 Conspiracy
 Counseling or Aiding and
Abetting
 Accessory after the fact