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. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
Defenses and Due Process Kylee Rivers CJS/220 Defenses and Due Process According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), an individual is only charged for a crime he/she committed intentionally. He suggests that such a crime must be without defense so that an individual is declared guilty. Defenses are situations that can stop or lessen the guilt in a case. Presentations of evidence for such situations ensure an accused person is defended from guilt. According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), the common elements of defense include insanity, entrapment and self-defense.
The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff 2.) The defendant breached that duty 3.) The plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury 4.) The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury When these elements are brought together, they unitedly constitute actionable negligence. The test of negligence is what a person of ordinary prudence or a reasonable person would or would not do in the same or similar circumstances.
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
What is simple subjectivism? Explain and evaluate the two best objections to it. Simple subjectivism is a metaethical theory that poses that qualities such as good and bad are true relative to the individual; thus moral judgements are simply expressions of opinion. However, this does not mean that every sentence uttered is true, as someone may propose a claim that does not correctly report their internal, subjective state. Despite being a theory which seemingly encourages acceptance and moral rationality, subjectivism is deemed as flawed on two predominant levels.
The primary mission of the due process model is to protect innocent people from wrongful conviction. It is doubtful that many would argue against the fact that we must engage in significant efforts to protect those who may be falsely accused. However, many argue that while the due process model focuses upon the rights of the accused it ignores the rights of victims. due process model does not limit itself to the Fourth Amendment. The police must also consider the individual rights of the accused in respect to many of the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
The tort of negligence is a term that escapes complete definition. Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury. It includes carelessness and lack of foresight; however the significance of negligence in tort is much broader. 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.
Fault is an essential element of criminal liability. It is a concept in criminal and civil law whereby the defendant is held responsible for doing something wrong. This can be through an act or omission and can be proven through the rules of causation. The implication of being found at fault is a criminal record whose consequences on the defendant personal life are serious. However, there are some types of behaviours such as Strict Liability offences which do not require fault but the defendant is still prosecuted.
Element Two– Breach of Duty EXPLANATION: This is an action below an acceptable level of responsibilty or inaction of this responsibility can result in a breach of that required duty and may result in lawsuits from negligence, especially in a professional capacity (Professional negligence). Under Tort, negligence will need to be proved, to do this it has to be established whether such duty exist and if the duty was
The first element, Duty, can be looked at almost like the Golden Rule. Everyone has a general duty to carry out a reasonable care toward other people and their property. The second element comes into play if a person acts unreasonably. Their unreasonable action is then considered a breach of duty of care of element one (duty).For the law to determine whether a person's conduct is reasonable or not, the law has to ask: “Would a person of average intelligence and general regard for others have acted in the same way?” If the obvious answer is a no, then the person's behavior was unreasonable and thus, a