Snyman_-_Chapter_7

Chapter VII: Participation and Accessories After the Fact

1. Introduction

• Criminal liability can involve multiple people acting together.

• Example: A, B, C, and D plan and execute a robbery, with distinct roles:

  • A finds out where the money is kept.

  • B threatens the shopkeeper with a gun.

  • C takes the money.

  • D keeps watch.

• Additional scenarios include:

  • E promises a reward for the robbery.

  • F helps dispose of the victim’s body after the crime.

• This section discusses:

  • Who is liable for murder, robbery, or theft?

  • How does liability depend on participation in the crime?

2. Types of Participants

• Participants in a crime are categorized into:

  • Perpetrators: Individuals who commit the crime or whose actions meet all criminal liability requirements.

  • Accomplices: Individuals who aid or encourage the crime but do not meet all perpetrator requirements.

  • Accessories After the Fact: Individuals who assist the perpetrator after the crime has been committed by helping them evade justice.

A. Perpetrator

• A person is a perpetrator if their actions, circumstances, and culpability fulfill the crime’s definition.

• In cases of common purpose, actions of one can be attributed to others involved in a group.

B. Accomplice

• Defined as someone who unlawfully furthers a crime committed by another, even if they don't satisfy all liabilities for the crime.

• Example: X, a minister, performs a marriage knowing one participant is already married; he is an accomplice but not a perpetrator of bigamy.

• Accomplices may include those directly enabling the crime (giving advice, facilitating actions).

3. Accessory After the Fact

• An accessory after the fact acts after the crime, assisting the perpetrator.

• Example: Helping by disposing of a corpse after a murder has occurred.

• Accessories do not promote the initial crime; their actions come afterward.

4. Terminology and Legal Terminology

• The term “socius criminis” was historically used for participants but is now less favored.

• “Aider and abettor” typically refers to an accomplice.

5. Principles Related to Perpetrators

Summary of Principles

1. A perpetrator operates either through:

   • Meeting all statutory definition requirements.

   • Acting in concert with others, where conduct is imputed through common purpose.

2. Co-perpetrators can coexist; multiple actors can all be perpetrators.

3. Whether one uses their own actions or someone else’s doesn’t affect perpetrator liability, barring limitations for personal involvement crimes (like rape).

4. Liability is independent; e.g., if one is acquitted of murder, co-perpetrators may still be liable.

6. Common Purpose Doctrine

• This doctrine allows liability of individuals who acted jointly in a crime, attributing each person's actions to all involved.

• Must demonstrate shared intent to commit the crime, encompassing all actions leading to the crime's completion.

• Evidence of a partnership can arise from conduct, not necessarily prior conspiracy.

7. Responsibilities of Participants

• Active association is crucial for determining the liability under the common purpose doctrine.

• Requires:

  • Physical presence during the crime.

  • Awareness of the crime being committed.

  • Intent to associate with or facilitate the crime.

8. Withdrawal from Common Purpose

• Withdrawal can lead to negating liability if:

  • Clear and unambiguous intention to withdraw exists.

  • Positive acts to withdraw, not merely passive actions.

  • Withdrawal must occur before the crime's execution.

9. Accessory After the Fact Detailed Explanation

1. Definition: An accessory only engages post-crime to help the perpetrator evade justice.

2. Actions taken must happen after the crime.

3. Mere passivity or failing to report a crime does not constitute being an accessory unless there's a legal duty.

4. There must be knowledge of the perpetrator’s prior crime and intent to assist them in avoiding consequences.

5. The accessory’s liability is also conditional on another committing the crime; they cannot be self-accessories.

6. Legal confusion exists when multiple individuals could be accessories but courts have been lenient to avoid unfairness in rulings.

10. Conclusion

• The necessity and application of the accessory after the fact in law continue to be debated, overlapping significantly with laws against obstructing justice.

• Punishment for accessories may not exceed the penalties for the original crime.