Under the law, murder requires a killing to be both intentional and either planned or committed when the killer was in his right mind. People who kill when they are emotionally disturbed are often convicted of a slightly lesser crime, voluntary manslaughter. As evidence of diminished capacity, White's lawyers presented evidence the he was severely depressed and suffered from mental illness as a result. Defense experts testified about White's depression, and one therapist mentioned that White had been eating more Twinkies and other Hostess treats, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. That was presented as evidence of White's depression.
October 2, 2012 Case Brief Cupp v Murphy 412 U.S. 291 (1973) Facts: Daniel Murphy was convicted of murdering his wife in the second degree. After he found out of the murder he called the police and voluntarily submitted himself to questioning. In the middle of his questioning the police noticed a dark spot on his finger and they asked if they could get a sample and he refused. The police did not respect his wishes and they took the sample anyways of what was under his fingernail. They processed it and later found out there was traces of his wife’s nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim.
Gibbons made out that Proctor was in charge of the child and didn’t know about her condition but the court convicted him on the grounds that he was the father and lived in the same house and should of noticed the condition she was in and had therefore neglected her. You also have a duty to minimise any danger you may have caused by a act. For example R v Miller (1983) in which Miller is a squatter in a house and accidentally catches his bed alight with a cigarette, he than just moved into another room without trying to stop the fire. He was found liable for the damage caused to the house because he had a chance to limit the damage. The other exceptions to the general rule are: * A duty arising from a statue.
Crime and Punishment Testimony Rodion Raskolnikov has committed a double murder, for he has to be psychologically evaluated by I Dr. Alzubi. We the prosecution is entitled to prove Rodion Raskolnikov guilty on all accounts of murder. I have twenty two years of criminal psychiatry experience; which leaves me to prove Rodion sane while he committed the double crime. Rodion Raskolnikov kills the pawnbroker and her sister; Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta. The sole purpose of ripping people off for their money by taking advantage of their poor economic status is immoral.
Ethical formalism that is a deontological system because its determinant is motive or intent and not consequence. This is the system that the cops chose because they believed their motive was in fact good and they weren’t worried about getting caught. All the police officers where worried about in this situation was getting drugs off the street and taking off some of the pressure they were being put under by society. I believe that if Detective Griffiths would have not gotten shot and killed and this was a normal raid and drug but this situation never blows up like it did. It was a very unfortunate accident where everything that could go wrong went wrong and it ended up with a dead officer and a criminal that got to walk away with no punishment at all.
Where a consequence must be proved then the prosecution has to show that the defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence, the legal cause of that consequence and that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation. Factual causation is established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks 'but for the actions of the defendant, would the consequence have occurred?' and if the answer is no and the consequence would not have occurred then the defendant is liable as it can be said that their action was a factual cause of the consequence. In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence.
This is because a deadly weapon was actually used. First, even if her husband did threaten her, it was only verbal and was not accompanied by any physical action. There is little perceived fear that we can attach to Sharon and no reasonable basis why she should have been scared. She also had the chance to leave the table and retreat away from her husband but actually chose to hit him over his head with a bottle. In addition, majority of jurisdictions consider force that can lead to serious bodily harm; for example, a bloodied head, as being equivalent to the use of a deadly weapon (Siegel & Senna, 2008).
RULE: The land owner does not owe a special duty of care to persons on an adjoining highway. The landowner is held to be a reasonable, ordinary and prudent person. The court held that in this case, the risk of a ball escaping the field was so low that a reasonable person would not have taken further precautions. Unless one has committed acts that are unreasonable, he has not breached a duty to his neighbour. RESULTS: The appellants were not liable to the respondent because for negligence to be present in an act, not only a reasonable possibility should be happening but also of injury being caused to the respondent.
In law, it is defined as the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” (Alderson, 1856) [Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.] [1856] in this essay I will discuss the essential ingredients that make up the tort of negligence. Generally speaking there is no legal duty to avoid causing harm to others. For duty of care to make a case in court there are underlying principles, there are: that there is a relationship of such proximity between the parties, that it is reasonably foreseeable that a breach of duty of care will occasion loss to the party to whom the duty is owed; and, that it is reasonable and just that the duty should be imposed. In certain circumstances the courts may say there is a legal duty of care to avoid causing hurt to others in specific circumstances, i.e. not everyone is who is ‘careless’ will be liable in negligence from a legal point of view.
It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands on another person. It is sufficient to show that at any time or place the person in any manner deprived another person of his/her liberty without sufficient legal authority. False arrest is sometimes used interchangeably with false imprisonment. False arrest is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another consisting of detention without sufficient legal authority. In order to establish a false arrest claim, the person detained must prove that the arrest is unlawful and such unlawful arrest resulted in injury.