Discussion post on Concurrence and Burden of Proof

No plagiarism please… it gets checked. Please use references and citations. Please hit the distinguished marks for all categories in the scoring guide. TIA

INTRODUCTION

Criminal liability is dependent on the concurrence of a criminal mental state with the commission of a criminal act; thus, the attempt to commit a criminal act may be sufficient. A substantial step made in furtherance of the commission of an offense must be taken, rather than the mere planning or preparation to commit a criminal offense. Therefore, it can be a fine line as to whether one incident may be the subject of criminal liability while the other is not. Concurrence requires that a criminal act occur at the same time the actor possessed the required criminal mental state. To convict a defendant of a given crime, prosecutors must prove to a judge or jury that all the statutory elements of a crime are present. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If even one statutory element of an offense cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, it is concluded that criminal liability will not have been demonstrated, and the defendant will be found not guilty.

For this discussion, you will consider the concept of burden of proof in the context of concurrence by responding to the following in your main post:

Explain the advantages and disadvantages of our adversarial system regarding the burden of proof falling on the government to prove the concurrence of the criminal act with a criminal mind.
Evaluate whether a fact-finder can look into the mind of an accused to determine the way that person acted at the time of committing the crime.
Analyze whether the elements of concurrence are met and whether a man can be prosecuted for his wife’s death in the following situation: the man has been thinking about killing his wife and thoughtfully plans the details of how he is going to carry out the crime, and then his wife is killed in a car accident that he had nothing to do with.

DISCUSSION OBJECTIVES

Competency 1: Examine criminal law and procedure.
- Explain the advantages and disadvantages of our adversarial system regarding the burden of proof in the context of concurrence.
Competency 4: Analyze the elements of a crime.
- Evaluate whether a fact-finder can look into the mind of an accused at the time of a criminal act.
- Analyze whether the elements of concurrence are met in a criminal act.

Criminal Justice Program Discussion Participation Grading Rubric
Criteria	Non-performance	Basic	Proficient	Distinguished
Main Discussion Post Response (60%)
Apply critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. 50%	Does not apply elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.	Applies some elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.	Applies critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post.	Applies critical thinking or problem solving to the main discussion post in a comprehensive, step-by-step manner.
Use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion. 10%	Does not use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.	Responds to the discussion, but some or all of the resources used for support are not credible.	Uses credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion.	Uses well- developed, relevant support from credible resources or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion and impartially considers conflicting data or other perspectives.
Follow-up Post Response One (15%)
Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. 15%	Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post.	Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view.	Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.	Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.
Follow-up Response Two (15%)
Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. 15%	Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post or the first response.	Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view.	Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view.	Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post.
All Posts (10%)
Communicate in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. 10%	Communicates in a manner that is inconsistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.	Communicates in a manner that is not fully consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.	Communicates in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals.	Communicates in a clear, comprehensive, and professional manner aligned with with expectations for criminal justice professionals.

REQUIREMENTS

discussion post criminal law Concurrence description 1 pages, Double Spacing book Criminal Law Today

Answer Preview…………….

APA 352 words