Henderson purchased an acre of property two miles out side the city limits with the intent to build a house. While he was building the house, he was living in a used mobile home he had moved to his property. One night, Maxwell set fire to the mobile home and it was destroyed. Henderson was not in the mobile home at the time.

A charge of arson against Maxwell would be:

a. Improper because a mobile home cannot be a dwelling.

b. Improper because the fire occurred outside the city limits.

c. Proper because the mobile home was used as a dwelling.

d. Proper because the mobile home was destroyed.

Question

Eve

Social Studies

7 November, 03:29

Henderson purchased an acre of property two miles out side the city limits with the intent to build a house. While he was building the house, he was living in a used mobile home he had moved to his property. One night, Maxwell set fire to the mobile home and it was destroyed. Henderson was not in the mobile home at the time.

A charge of arson against Maxwell would be:

a. Improper because a mobile home cannot be a dwelling.

b. Improper because the fire occurred outside the city limits.

c. Proper because the mobile home was used as a dwelling.

d. Proper because the mobile home was destroyed.

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Gia Cobb · Answer 1

A charge of arson against Maxwell would be proper because the mobile home was destroyed.

Option d

Explanation:

From the above mentioned statement the type of crime made by Maxwell is being categorised as the property crime. Property crime is a crime classified as other crimes like theft, burglary, arson, shoplifting and vandalism.

When the property is destroyed then it may be called as vandalism or arson. In the above case Maxwell has burnt the property of Henderson which is mobile home so charge of arson was the case made against Maxwell. According to the law it is fit case for classified under arson.