However, this fault does not necessarily mean she is actually criminally culpable of murder. In murder, once Actus Reus has been established Mens Rea must also be satisfied. Mens rea being ‘malice aforethought’ which can be established by “foresight of death or grievous bodily harm as virtually certain.” Therefore, to sentence Dot with murder it must be established that she foresaw either the death of the children or their grievous bodily harm as virtually certain. Considering she had no knowledge that the children had been poisoned and did not intend the events to happen, simply thinking they were suffering from a stomach ache; it is unlikely that the jury would find intent under the Woolin test. Nonetheless, if the jury did not find the necessary Mens Rea, she could instead be charged with the crime of manslaughter, which is committed when a defendant commits the Actus Reus of homicide but the killing is not sufficiently blameworthy to warrant liability for murder.
Mia Michael H.English Mrs. Gaskill April 23, 2013 An argument that never seems to have a clear winner is “Life in Prison” vs. “The Death Penalty”. Although both sides have valid points, I feel that only one should be allowed. The death penalty is inhumane and unethical. It seems hypocritical for us, the American people, and are judicial system to say that murder is wrong and illegal, but continue to murder both the guilty and thee wrongfully accused. The death penalty gives those that are actually guilty the easy way out of punishment, and the innocent a wrongful death.
Each city-state enjoyed its own freedoms, but also shared many of the same things including language, religion and sciences. Trade between the city-states was also very important because it allowed goods to flow from one city to another. One of the most interesting facts about Mesopotamia can be seen in Hammurabi’s Code, the Amorite King Hammurabi’s list of crimes and punishments, which is known to be the earliest written “legal” writing of the time. Hammurabi’s code contains the famously known saying: “if a man has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy: thy shall destroy his eye. If he has broken his limb: thy shall break the same limb.” Many people know about this saying but do not know where it came from; it is extremely interesting that it came from one of the earliest civilizations.
(8) He also ordered the construction of a new capitol which was named Pi-Ramses A-nakhtu or “The Domain of Ramses Great victories.” It has almost disappeared today but they did find it. The israelites also helped build the city. They did a lot of the brick making, and Ramses boasted of the kindness he gave to them but the Bible notes that he was bitter. (8) He also changed Egypt by making peace with the Hittites who his father Seti was battling. He made peace with them by marrying one of his daughters.
It states that no one can be held for a crime unless a grand jury has indicted him or her for the crime, which the grand jury decides whether or not there is enough evidence to take them to trial. The Fifth Amendment also states that no one can be tried more than once for the same crime, which is called double jeopardy. Double jeopardy has been known to be decisive if a person is being tried for a lesser crime. Example, a person hits someone with a cast iron skillet and wounds him or her so extremely that he or she expires. If the criminal is charged and tried for murder, but found innocent, then he or she cannot be charged with a reduced offense for the same crime, such as a serious assault.
Many prosecutors use the threat of the death penalty as a way of getting a plea deal to get the offender off the streets. (Ewegen, 1994) Yet using the death penalty this way does not make it a deterrent against crime, it just keeps the judicial system from spending more money on trials. The death penalty has been abolished in many developed societies. The death penalty has no deterrent effect on capital crime. More over, the risk of executing an innocent person is unacceptable.
William Thomas Oliver 11 September 2011 History 101 Mr. Alexander The early Ancient Mesopotamian civilizations wrote laws that have evolved somewhat into what we use today in our modern laws. What I observed in this topic is that in Ancient Middle East laws were written by kings, not by a group of people known as a governing body. The legal code of Hammurabi from Ancient Middle Eastern time were the most famous laws made after the Hebrew Torah. These laws are interesting to most readers because it tells us how the attitudes of ancient Babylonians. There attitudes were a little barbaric in a sense of the punishments, death, breaking of bones, gouging out of the eyes tied up and cast into the water, I guess its what we call now a days, “ an eye for eye, tooth for a tooth”.
SOME LAWS NEVER SEEM TO CHANGE: THE MOST ANCIENT LAW AS PRACTICED TODAY Kayla Judah Written by the sixth king of Babylonia, The Code of Hammurabi is well known as the first law printed. Containing 282 laws accompanied with punishments, Hammurabi intended on effectively providing civil and criminal rights in an attempt to form a well organized society. Which brings to mind the goal of today’s law system: to protect rights and freedoms. The word ‘freedom’ is where the Code of Hammurabi and what we know today completely differ. Though the similarities between the two are quite obvious and necessary for the basis of today’s law, the differences revealed also helped to develop models that legislators chose not to follow for various reasons.
This is a great example of the use of the rhetoric, ethos’s because he is basing his decision of not guilty, off of principles and morals rather than evidence shown, and wants to first discuss and way all the evidence of the case, rather than just making a quick decision because it seems that the logical answer would be guilty. After they start to discuss the evidence that was presented in court it is brought up by one of the jurors that the switch blade used in the murder was very unique and that it would be highly unlikely that someone else would have had the same exact knife as the boy and used it stab the victim. This is where number starts to use the rhetoric; of logo’s by revealing that had he had been walking in the boy’s neighborhood after the trail a knife that was the exact same one as the one found at the murder scene just two blocks from the boys home. He then goes on to explain that this proves that the boy could be telling the truth , about losing the knife in his neighborhood on the way home , and that the knife may not be as hard to come by as they may have thought. By bringing this up and providing evidence that could disprove what was presented in court , juror number 8
Take the death penalty for example, it is the old eye for an eye concept, kill and be killed. Is this where the lesson ends? There aren’t many recipients to interview, so it must be just accountability. Why should this be the exemption to our system, while everything else we strive to accomplish with bettering ourselves is such a different sort of punishment in place? A life of incarceration without the possibility of parole is a realistic alternative for the small number of offenders who are likely to be executed in any given year.