Eassy unit 2. In this assignment, you will refer back to the three handouts indicated below and answer the questions associated with them. You will find these handouts linked within the Unit II Study Guide. Both items listed below will be responded to within the same document which you will then submit. The response to each item will consist of at least 200 words each, and any sources used, including your textbook, should be cited and referenced properly at the end of your responses using APA formatting. It is not necessary to copy the items below into your document; however, please compose essays that include a clear introduction, body, and conclusion: 1. After reading ?What Constitutes the Corpus Delecti of an Offense,? please answer the following questions. How can the corpus delecti of robbery be demonstrated? Of theft? Why did the court conclude that, “In this case, the evidence does not conclusively establish that Hoke’s purse was taken forcibly from her. The evidence does, however, support an inference that she was robbed”? 2. After reading ?For Purposes of Criminal Attempt?,? please answer the following questions. Do you agree that the girls had taken a substantial step toward the commission of a targeted offense? What test does the court establish for Tennessee to determine whether a substantial step has been taken? Would your answer be different if Tennessee used the last-step test or the physical proximity test? If so, how? Do you think that the court, in using common law rules of construction, modifies the legislative enactment? Is the court using its judgment to replace that of the drafters of the statute? Explain your answer. 3. After reading, ?Can a Private Corporation be held Liable?,? please answer the following questions. In this case, McIlwain School Bus Lines, Inc. argued that the offense of homicide by vehicle could not be committed by a corporation. On what grounds did the corporation base its arguments? Why did the court conclude that a corporation was a “person” for purposes of the law? How was such a conclusion reached? What are the potential legal ramifications of granting the status of “person” to a corporation?