Week 6 Check Point: Mind Over Matter By Mary Setzer The difference between mental illness and insanity is that insanity is a more severe form of mental illness where a person fails to realize what is real and what is fantasy. The M'Naghten rule can't be used to defend the actions of someone who drinks alcohol because drinking is a voluntary act. Had the person not had alcohol, they would not have committed a crime. If someone receives a rational and guilty verdict after committing a crime, it means that the person convicted knew what they were doing and aware of the consequences. 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 Barbie does not die Ken can still be hit with a charge for disclosing the fact that he had aids. Ken would probably get hit with intentional transmission which is when you fail to inform your partner that you don't have aids. Theres is also a possibility that Ken wont get charged because the laws are still very blurry when it comes to the transmission of aids. What is Homicide? Homicide is murder but not all homicides are illegal some are considered justified homicide an example of justified homicide is when its done as an act of self defense.
One needs to consider whether the sinking of the ship was an isolated event that was easily corrected, or whether it was a serious flaw that would require costly repairs. What needs to be answered regarding the flaw is whether the vendor, Captain Jack Sparrow, should have been aware of such a flaw; that is, was the flaw as a result of a patent or latent defect. If such defect was latent, was it known to the vendor. At common law, Davey Jones should also consider the principles of product liability, a branch of negligence law, arguing that Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. sold him a defective product that was not fit for its intended and known purpose. Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship.
Discuss the extent to which liability in English Law is, and should be fault based. ‘Fault’ is given to a person when they have done something wrong, i.e in terms of ‘blame’ or ‘responsibility’. A person may be blamed and justifiably made liable for actions that can be described as being their fault.When it comes to criminal law, it is the prosecutions role to establish that the defendant has carried out the unlawful act, known as the actus reus, and at that time the defendant had the guilty mind, known as the mens rea. Simply, the deft is made accountable for the fact that he is at ‘fault’ for his actions. If he is responsible he should be ‘blamed’ through a conviction and then ‘punished’ with his sentence.
With respect to murder, the penal code under section 200 explicitly states that any person who of malice aforethought’; thus, demands the need of the mens rea. Malice aforethought relates to the state of mind of the accused person at the time he caused the death of the deceased. malice aforethought may be either express malice which demands an intention to cause death or do grievous bodily harm, implied malice which entails proof of knowledge (knowledge that may be accompanied by indifference) that the act or omission will probably result into causing death or grievous harm to the person or constructive malice which requires the accused person to cause death while attempting or committing a felony. On the other hand, the mens rea of murder which is malice aforethought is not linked to manslaughter. This is why manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder.
Intention can be divided into direct intent and oblique intent. Direct intent: The majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. 3) Oblique intent: Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result.
HABEAS CORPUS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY WRIT Habeas Corpus is an ancient common law prerogative writ - a legal procedure to which you have an undeniable right. It is an extraordinary remedy at law. Upon proper application, or even on naked knowledge alone, a court is empowered, and is duty bound, to issue the Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding one who is restraining liberty to forthwith produce before the court the person who is in custody and to show cause why the liberty of that person is being restrained. Absent a sufficient showing for a proper restraint of liberty, the court is duty bound to order the restraint eliminated and the person discharged. Habeas Corpus is fundamental to American and all other English common law derivative systems of jurisprudence.
103). Criminal negligence manslaughter is considered when a person is reckless and negligence and causes the death of another human being. Unlawful act manslaughter is considered when a person is breaking a law and ends up taking a life. “Homicide by vehicle” (Davenport, 2009, p. 104) is considered unlawful act manslaughter because they are usually violating a traffic regulation when a death occurs. Two other homicides that are not heard about all the time are “euthanasia” and “infanticide” (Davenport, 2009, p. 106).
The defence of provocation applies when someone has been charged with murder and it is used to reduce the charge to manslaughter. The general idea for provocation is that the accused lost all self- control due to being provoked by a person or an act and therefore had no knowledge of what they were doing. In 1512 he distinction was created between killings that were murder and killings that lacked the malice afterthought or premeditated intent to kill which later become known as manslaughter. After the introduction on the ‘doctrine of malice’, which placed more emphasis on the mental element in murder, killings that were carried out in “hot blood” or anger, were excluded from the doctrine and in order claim this the accused had to show that
Take murder for example, a crime which under UK jurisdiction would be considered one of the worst and punished more harshly. Yet in times of war it is encouraged and accepted. This brings to question the proportionality of the justice system. There are endless examples of where there appears to be a set of double standards in defining what is criminal. Allowing you