ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the criminal law’s complicity doctrine, which holds that someone may be held liable for an offense even if they did not commit it themselves. First, the chapter discusses the case of August Spies, a 19th-century revolutionary who dispensed flyers encouraging violence at an upcoming rally. Though he was not directly involved in a bombing that killed and wounded several, he was found guilty of complicity for murder. The chapter then reveals the case of Cardinal Bernard Law who repeatedly reassigned Catholic priests with a history of pedophilia and abuse of hundreds of victims. However, he was not found to be guilty as an accomplice in these crimes. The chapter discusses how these different case outcomes are the result of the diversity in determining complicity liability, as jurisdictions may require the actor to have purpose or knowledge as to the resulting harm of their actions or may require that the resulting harm is the natural and probable consequence of one’s actions. The chapter debates these various requirements for complicity liability and determines how each case would fare under the various requirements.
