This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It is a statement of the legally obvious that a prosecution must prove all of the elements specified in the definition of the offence. This page does not seem to refer to a defence in any sense that I recognise except and inso far as a judge, as a matter of law, could dismiss a case if the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence on all the consituent elements of the offence, and a jury could acquit in the ordinary course of events if they were not satisfied that the offence was made out. Equally, stating that "attendant circumstances" may be a factor in sentencing hardly makes it a defence. I am going to remove the page from the template to stimulate discussion. David91 03:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
David above has made allusion to the point that "attendant circumstance" is often not a "defense" -- but is a category of an "element" of a crime. The other categories of elements of a crime are the actus reus (or guilty conduct, which can be further broken down into the subcategories of commissions, or affirmative acts, and omissions, or failures to act) and the mens rea (or guilty mind). Famspear 16:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear David91: Yes, and I believe we're in agreement. My comments above were added to explain my edits to the main article on 13 January, and in support of your comments. Essentially, my purpose was to make clear that the term "attendant circumstance" is a way to describe one category of "elements" of an offense. I felt the main article benefited from the clarifying language on this point. Famspear 02:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Is United States v. Cabrales, 118 S. Ct. 1772 (1998), an example of what you mean? This was a criminal jurisdiction issue on venue involving a somewhat extraordinary (to my eyes) indictment. She was charged with money laundering, for transactions which began, continued, and were completed only in Florida:
The actus reus seems be the "financial transactions" but the indictment incorporates a reference to criminal activity in another state which creates the need to prove that the earlier activity was criminal as an attendant circumstance. More significantly, it invokes another state as a more relevant venue. What I do not know is whether this is an authority limited to jurisdictional issues, an authority on its own facts because of the way the indictment was drafted, or a general precedent because proof of a prior crime will always be necessary to prove the mens rea of knowledge. David91 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear David91: I am a tax practitioner. I do not practice criminal law as such, though criminal tax law issues come up occasionally. The way I remember it from law school is roughly as follows:
In so-called Model Penal Code states in the USA, there are usually four possible levels of mens rea, and each statute defining a crime states (or should state) the level of mens rea required for the offense:
Notice that the mens rea element might or might not apply to the “attendant circumstances,” depending on the crime.
In the USA, tax evasion can be an example of the application of the concepts (note: the Federal tax crime statutes are not based on the “Model Penal Code”). Internal Revenue Code section 7201 provides:
Under this statute and related case law, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following three elements:
I argue that the attendant circumstance -- the existence of an unpaid tax – is not really part of the “conduct” of the offender – at least not for purposes of this criminal statute. The way I learned it in law school, “conduct” really refers narrowly to physical acts or failures to act. The following example of Mr. “Joe Baker” is illustrative.
In this situation, I argue that the existence or non-existence of the attendant circumstance (non-existence of a tax liability) is separate from and has nothing to do with Joe’s conduct in filling out the forms, signing them, and mailing them. In this sense, I argue that there is no redundancy in talking about "conduct" as being separate from "attendant circumstance." The non-existence of the attendant circumstance -- an actual unpaid, legally owed tax -- was based only on the fact that the income he happened to receive simply was not taxable under the law in question. The nature of the non-existence of the attendant circumstance was fixed by (A) the applicable law, (B) the fact that his only income was a life insurance benefit, and (C) the fact that the tax year had closed (i.e., on December 31, 2005). All the facts making up the attendant circumstances were fixed long before April of 2006, when he began his conduct -- preparing, signing and filing the tax return. Yours, Famspear 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Note: I have re-edited the last sentence. Famspear 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating. Thank you for taking the time to set all this out. In the English system, we have a simple approach to life: the actus reus is everything that is not mens rea. Thus, we would lump everything together as definitional components rather than disaggregating conduct from its attendant circumstances. Testing for prima facie liability pre-trial and for actual liability at trial becomes more straightforward. The words of the definition for the offence are set out and then we consider the available evidence to determine whether each component is likely to be or actually satisfied within the burden of proof. Thus, we would simply say that the prosecution must prove that a net sum of income tax was due from the taxpayer for the year of assessment, and that the defendant wilfully attempted to evade that liability: either tax was or was not owing; either the defendant made an attempt or did not. The detail of what he or she might have believed seems completely irrelevant because all that is required is a wilfull attempt. Whether it would have succeeded as intended is irrelevant (impossibility does not seem to be an issue). Seems to me that the U.S. is making something very simple unduly comlex for no apparent benefit. David91 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attendant circumstance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It is a statement of the legally obvious that a prosecution must prove all of the elements specified in the definition of the offence. This page does not seem to refer to a defence in any sense that I recognise except and inso far as a judge, as a matter of law, could dismiss a case if the prosecution had failed to adduce evidence on all the consituent elements of the offence, and a jury could acquit in the ordinary course of events if they were not satisfied that the offence was made out. Equally, stating that "attendant circumstances" may be a factor in sentencing hardly makes it a defence. I am going to remove the page from the template to stimulate discussion. David91 03:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
David above has made allusion to the point that "attendant circumstance" is often not a "defense" -- but is a category of an "element" of a crime. The other categories of elements of a crime are the actus reus (or guilty conduct, which can be further broken down into the subcategories of commissions, or affirmative acts, and omissions, or failures to act) and the mens rea (or guilty mind). Famspear 16:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear David91: Yes, and I believe we're in agreement. My comments above were added to explain my edits to the main article on 13 January, and in support of your comments. Essentially, my purpose was to make clear that the term "attendant circumstance" is a way to describe one category of "elements" of an offense. I felt the main article benefited from the clarifying language on this point. Famspear 02:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Is United States v. Cabrales, 118 S. Ct. 1772 (1998), an example of what you mean? This was a criminal jurisdiction issue on venue involving a somewhat extraordinary (to my eyes) indictment. She was charged with money laundering, for transactions which began, continued, and were completed only in Florida:
The actus reus seems be the "financial transactions" but the indictment incorporates a reference to criminal activity in another state which creates the need to prove that the earlier activity was criminal as an attendant circumstance. More significantly, it invokes another state as a more relevant venue. What I do not know is whether this is an authority limited to jurisdictional issues, an authority on its own facts because of the way the indictment was drafted, or a general precedent because proof of a prior crime will always be necessary to prove the mens rea of knowledge. David91 04:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear David91: I am a tax practitioner. I do not practice criminal law as such, though criminal tax law issues come up occasionally. The way I remember it from law school is roughly as follows:
In so-called Model Penal Code states in the USA, there are usually four possible levels of mens rea, and each statute defining a crime states (or should state) the level of mens rea required for the offense:
Notice that the mens rea element might or might not apply to the “attendant circumstances,” depending on the crime.
In the USA, tax evasion can be an example of the application of the concepts (note: the Federal tax crime statutes are not based on the “Model Penal Code”). Internal Revenue Code section 7201 provides:
Under this statute and related case law, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following three elements:
I argue that the attendant circumstance -- the existence of an unpaid tax – is not really part of the “conduct” of the offender – at least not for purposes of this criminal statute. The way I learned it in law school, “conduct” really refers narrowly to physical acts or failures to act. The following example of Mr. “Joe Baker” is illustrative.
In this situation, I argue that the existence or non-existence of the attendant circumstance (non-existence of a tax liability) is separate from and has nothing to do with Joe’s conduct in filling out the forms, signing them, and mailing them. In this sense, I argue that there is no redundancy in talking about "conduct" as being separate from "attendant circumstance." The non-existence of the attendant circumstance -- an actual unpaid, legally owed tax -- was based only on the fact that the income he happened to receive simply was not taxable under the law in question. The nature of the non-existence of the attendant circumstance was fixed by (A) the applicable law, (B) the fact that his only income was a life insurance benefit, and (C) the fact that the tax year had closed (i.e., on December 31, 2005). All the facts making up the attendant circumstances were fixed long before April of 2006, when he began his conduct -- preparing, signing and filing the tax return. Yours, Famspear 05:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Note: I have re-edited the last sentence. Famspear 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating. Thank you for taking the time to set all this out. In the English system, we have a simple approach to life: the actus reus is everything that is not mens rea. Thus, we would lump everything together as definitional components rather than disaggregating conduct from its attendant circumstances. Testing for prima facie liability pre-trial and for actual liability at trial becomes more straightforward. The words of the definition for the offence are set out and then we consider the available evidence to determine whether each component is likely to be or actually satisfied within the burden of proof. Thus, we would simply say that the prosecution must prove that a net sum of income tax was due from the taxpayer for the year of assessment, and that the defendant wilfully attempted to evade that liability: either tax was or was not owing; either the defendant made an attempt or did not. The detail of what he or she might have believed seems completely irrelevant because all that is required is a wilfull attempt. Whether it would have succeeded as intended is irrelevant (impossibility does not seem to be an issue). Seems to me that the U.S. is making something very simple unduly comlex for no apparent benefit. David91 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attendant circumstance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)