1. Flinn’s defense is invalid. The law does not care for nor allow for ignorance as a defense. Even though Flinn claims that he did not intend to break the law he is not exempt from prosecution. Flinn had the duty to determine what legal documentation he needed to begin his business. If convicted, Flinn’s ignorance of the law may be taken into account and instead of facing incarceration, he may face forfeiture, and fines.

2. Yes. Northwestern Bell committed the acts of bribery and improper political influence. Bribery was enforced by affirming that they would give individuals employment for favorable treatment. Improper political influence was implemented when they company stated that they requested preferential treatment from a government body in exchange for money, tourism, and other perks.

3. …show more content…
No. There is not significant intent and action for the crime of larceny. Baker knew that breaking and entering the store was illegal. He then moved merchandise to the door in which he entered. One can assume that, that was done to move the merchandise quickly. But these actions are not outlined in the crime of larceny. The crime that Baker should be charged with is Burglary. Larceny and robbery can be grouped together and involve the removal of goods. Until they were removed from the store, the individuals did not commit larceny. Burglary would best suit the actions committed because it involves intent. Baker and his associates intended to steal from the store.

4. No. No one intendeds to hit a pedestrian whether they have consumed alcoholic beverages. Gail should have taken necessary precautions such as having a designated driver or calling a taxi if she knew she was going to consume alcohol. Unless she was over the legal limit, she should not be charged with a crime. Many people fall asleep at the wheel due to different circumstances. But if Gail had consumed alcohol previously and knew that she blackouts, she is responsible for what