Superior Essay Writers | The crimes of robbery, larceny, embezzlement, and arson

The crimes of robbery, larceny, embezzlement, and arson

Factual Scenario
Tom is a bank teller at Savings Bank, and as a bank teller, his sole responsibility is to handle the money in his cash drawer. Also, Tom is a bit of a gambler, and things have not been going his way for the last few months. As a result, he has incurred over $50,000 in gambling debts, and he doesn’t have the money to pay it back. In desperation, he hatches a plan to steal money from the bank to pay off the debts. While at work, he starts a fire in the break room and pulls the fire alarm. The fire quickly spreads and the staff immediately starts an evacuation of the customers. In the confusion, Tom goes down the line of cash drawers and empties the cash into a briefcase he is carrying, but his drawer is at the end, and he is not able to reach it or take any money out of it before the fire becomes too dangerous and he needs to escape as well. No one is ultimately hurt in the fire, but the bank building has been substantially damaged. Further, some employees saw Tom taking the money, and he was immediately arrested.
Questions:

Fully summarize the law related to the crimes of robbery, larceny, embezzlement, and arson (a discussion of these crimes can be found on pages 161 and 170 of the e-textbook).
Analyze the facts in the factual scenario and decide which, if any, of the crimes listed above have been committed by Tom. In your answer to this question, it is not enough to simply say whether they have been met or not. You must provide specific reasons based on the facts for your ruling.

Sample Solution

Robbery is a crime that involves taking something from someone else by force or threat of violence. It requires the use of physical force, or the threat of it, in taking the property and carrying away the goods with intent to permanently deprive the owner of their possession. Robbery is usually considered a felony offense and penalties can include fines, imprisonment and even life sentences depending on the severity.

Firstly, Vittola discusses one of the just causes of war, most importantly, is when harm is inflicted but he does mention the harm does not lead to war, it depends on the extent or proportionality, another condition to jus ad bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, however, argues the idea of “just cause” based on “Sovereignty” which refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again today’s world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, ‘since it is lawful to resist force with force,’ but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to “teach its enemies a lesson,” but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotle’s argument: ‘there must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues “self-defence” has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify one’s actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittola’s view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisher’s authority, but also today’s world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that ‘right intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,’ suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Other factors need to be considered, for example, Proportionality. Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed.>

GET ANSWER