Friday, September 29, 2006

Two Questions Arise: The Model Penal Code - Foley and Hastert Pedophiles?

Granted, I'm not sure if the Model Penal Code section 2.06 has been adapted to the jurisdiction of Washington, DC.

But, let's assume it has. Or at least the definition of accomplice

Section 2.06. Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity

(1) A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, or both.
(2) A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when:
(a) acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct; or
(b) he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the Code or by the law defining the offense; or
(c} he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense.
(3) A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:
(a) with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he
(i) solicits such other person to commit it; or
(ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or
(iii) having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effect so to do; or
(b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity.


The questions I have:
1. Was there a legal duty which was ignored when Rep. Foley's sexual predatory was first discovered many months ago?

2. If so, who had a legal duty to stop Rep. Foley from preying and sexually assaulting more children?

Those people may be brought to trial for being an accomplice to Foley's crimes.

Maybe it's nobody. But it's worth investigating.