ICE told to get the eff out

[fillyboy]

 

[fillyboy]

 

[MNW67]

OMG and you have had to think about that,, Jeeez. So you think you have to be seriously injured for it to be an offence to drive your car into someone.

I am glad that you are so certain that you know the answer to complex criminal law questions in a foreign jurisdiction. Even in the UK, inchoate offences are often misunderstood. I am happy to admit that it is outside my experience and I had to ask for a bit of help!

AI Overview

Encouraging an offence is indeed a complex area of US law, operating at the intersection of criminal liability and First Amendment free speech protections. US law distinguishes between protected advocacy of lawbreaking and unprotected solicitation or facilitation of specific crimes.

Key areas of complexity include:

1. The Constitutional Boundary (First Amendment)
While the First Amendment is broad, it does not protect speech that is an "integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute".

• Protected vs. Unprotected: Abstract advocacy of illegal action remains protected. However, speech intended to bring about a particular unlawful act—such as a specific threat or direct instruction to commit a crime—is unprotected.
• Imminence Requirement: For speech to be criminalized as incitement, it generally must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action".

2. Legal Theories of "Encouraging"
There are several distinct but overlapping, doctrines for holding someone responsible for the actions of another:

• Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2): This federal statute punishes anyone who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures" a crime as a principal. It requires that a crime was actually committed, and the defendant intended to facilitate it.
• Solicitation (18 U.S.C. § 373): This involves asking, inducing, or commanding another person to commit a crime of violence, even if the crime never occurs.
• Conspiracy: An agreement to commit a crime, coupled with an "overt act" in furtherance of the plan, is illegal.

3. Key Legal Distinctions

• Specific Intent: The defendant must generally have the specific intent to facilitate the crime, not just knowledge that a crime might occur.
• No Crime Needed (Sometimes): Under solicitation, the person encouraged does not have to actually commit the crime for the solicitor to be guilty. In contrast, aiding and abetting generally requires that a crime be committed.
• "Encouraging" in Statutes: Recent litigation, such as U.S. v. Hansen (2023), examined laws criminalizing the "encouraging or inducing" of illegal immigration. The Supreme Court clarified that in this context, "encourage" refers to the specific, purposeful solicitation and facilitation of illegal acts, rather than general, protected speech.

4. Exceptions and Defenses

• Victim Exclusion: A person cannot be guilty of encouraging an offence if they are part of the class of persons the law was designed to protect (e.g., a minor in certain sexual offence statutes).
• Renunciation/Withdrawal: In some cases, a person may avoid liability by taking affirmative steps to prevent the crime from being committed after they have encouraged it.

The complexity often lies in determining whether the encouragement was a "serious effort" to produce a criminal result or simply an expression of opinion or advocacy protected by the Constitution.