Massachusetts disorderly conduct and arson charges: legal definitions

Crimes

Criminal Activities

Crimes against public disorder

In order to be convicted of disorderly conduct, according to the State of Massachusetts the defendant must have committed three specific things: 1) involved themselves in fighting, threatening, or violent behavior, or create a situation that is hazardous or physically offensive, 2) the defendants actions were most likely to affect the public, and 3) the defendant must have intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or create the risk of such. ("Disorderly Conduct") Because of its intent to and effect of creating public disorder, disorderly conduct is considered a crime against the public. Disorderly conduct is often associated with political demonstrations, such as the Occupy Wall Street or Tea Party movements. In such situations, those guilty of disorderly conduct must have the intent, or mens rea, (Latin for "guilty mind), to either create, or risk creating, public disorder. (Singer, 2010, p.56) But in addition, the defendant must also have actus reus (Latin for "guilty act"), or the part of the crime that does not involve the mental aspects. This means that the defendant must have both the intent and commit an action that either causes public disorder or intends to create public disorder.

Crimes against public property

A person is guilty of arson, as defined by the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code (§220.1), if they start a fire or cause an explosion with the purpose of destroying a building or occupied structure, or destroy or damage property with the intent to collect insurance. ("Arson: Legal Aspects-Model Penal Code") This definition was developed early in the 20th century and focuses on the criminal activity of both starting the fire, but also collecting insurance. Because the intent of the crime must be against the property, and not persons, it is therefore considered to be a crime against property. One example of the crime of arson may be if a person acts to start a fire with the intent to burn down an abandoned apartment building in the hopes of collecting an insurance claim. First of all, to be arson, the building must be vacant, if there is the possibility of other people being involved then the crime because a crime against people. In order to guarantee conviction for the crime of arson, the prosecution must prove the mens rea, or intent to destroy the property for the insurance money, but also the actus reus, or the action of actually starting the fire.

Discussion

Each of the crimes discussed have involved a different aspect of society; either the public at large, property, or individual people. When deliberating as to the severity of each of the types of crimes, it is important to make a distinction between persons, which are more important in society, and property, which is something that can be replaced. It is also important to separate crimes that have actually injured another person from those that may injure someone. With this in mind, there should be different punishments for the three different types of crimes because the damage, or injury, is different. In the case of crimes against property, while something is damaged, the nature of the crime is to destroy property, not people, and thus should not be punished harshly. But in crimes against the public, the public is actually other people, and while the intent is usually to cause a public disturbance, because of the involvement of other people, there is the possibility of people getting injured. This is the reason that crimes against the public should be punished ore harshly than crimes against property. But the crime that deserves the harshest punishment are the crimes against people, particularly murder. In this case, both the intent and the result is to injure and kill another human being, and for the safety of all people, this crime should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.