For LSC one requirement under s.54 (1)(a) is that the killing by D must result from D’s loss of self-control, Any loss of control need not be sudden as defined in the case of Duffy and included in s.54(2), but it must be temporary (but not long term or permanent or it would amount to insanity) whereas it was quite the opposite for provocation this principle is demonstrated in Ibrams and Gregory (1981) where the D’s were convicted of murder as there was a five day gap before the murder meaning there was no sudden LSC, however the new defence is not available either as there was premeditation in this case. This requirement also allows ‘slow burn’ situations as demonstrated in R v Ahluwalia (1992) and Hobson (1998) The defence of LSC also requires the presence of one or both qualifying triggers as set out in s.55 of the C&J act 2009. For trigger one to be present, D’s LSC must be attributable to D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another
The trial court found that it was not, and granted the defendant summary judgment. In this case, John Marhshall was not the proximate cause of the death because Mr. Smith was experiencing psychosis symptoms prior to his death. The other sypmtoms he experienced were only reported to his roomate and not the nurse, therefore the nurse had no idea he was experiencing such issues. Hence, the nurse or the hospital was not the proximate cause of his suicide and may have resulted from several other factors. IV.
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.
A guilty but insane verdict means that the person convicted was insane to have killed someone (for example) but realizes what they have done is wrong. If a person
Preparatory Crime For a case to be inchoate the person that is accused of the crime must have a guilty mind, or a mens rea, to have all conspiracy against them repelled. Though for them to be guilty of all crimes they must have had intended for the crime to have happened. For a murder to be intent the defendant must have intended for the victim to have been killed. In a case of inchoate, for the defendant to be cleared you need proof of mens rea. Though they may have threatened to kill them.
Actus Reus • In most cases where only the AR is taken into account, this is not enough to prosecute a person. • The current law on murder suggests that it is enough to convict a person for murder, regardless of their MR/intention. • But how does the law deal with a person who does not know their intention or had no intention to kill. • Moloney: not in right state of mind – under influence of alcohol – committed murder – had no MR as he was not in right state of mine – didn’t know what he was doing – difficult to establish whether guilty of
Technically, Mickey’s attacks are not spouse abuse, but straightforward assault and battery. The deliberation of rape, another obvious situation in the case, is never addressed. When Francine seeks help from various social agencies, they let her down, advising her to get a lawyer. For some reason, she is unable or unwilling to take this step, and she even shows a reserve at first to deal with her own court-appointed attorney. Her fears are that the law might turn against her, declare her an unfit mother, or otherwise destroy her
The law of murder encapsulates the notion of how the common law deals in homicide cases. Murder carries the legal definition of ‘the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought’. There are two fundamental elements that need to be present in order to prove murder. The first element, actus reus, is the act itself that proliferated the consequence of death and the second element, mens rea, is the intention or mental element that caused the death of another human being. However, the question really begs whether or not the law of murder is in need of a reform in situations where one or both of its fundamental elements are absent?
When a person murders someone else that murderer destroys the victim’s family’s lives. It has been shown all along the devastation caused by Madoff to his victims. You have to wonder where you draw the line. In this instance I believe you don’t. I think the judge made a smart decision about how the punishment should fit the crime. The severity of Ponzi scheme reflects the severity of the punishment.
Judges, lawyers, and other members of the legal community all over Canada believe that infanticide should not be used as a legal defense. Isabel Grant, a law professor who specializes in mental health and criminal law at the University of British Columbia argues that infanticide should not be used as a defense even though a killing like this is less culpable than murder. “The vast majority of women would risk their lives to save their baby and in these cases something goes terribly wrong” (Grant, 2010). Grant argues that even though a woman suffers from a mental condition, it is not fair to be more lenient to the mother when treatment is so easily attainable in a country such as Canada. She believes that the mothers that use infanticide as a legal defense basically use that as an excuse in order to avoid a life time sentence in jail.