Retributivism is an unbiased and impartial response to a perpetrator that has wronged another. Revenge usually inflicts harm greater in severity than the initial crime whereas retribution exacts proportional punishment. Objection 2: Even if the murderer deserves to die the state does not have special authority to take the life of another human being. “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Duet. 32:35 & Romans
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.
The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages. Damages were incurred. (Textbook p.150) ANALYSIS The fact remain that there was an accident, an injury occurred from the accident and negligence was evident. Officer Ruthless was negligent but was justified in the decision. He had to uphold the curfew law.
They lied about getting a warrant and in turn let a killer walk away from the situation with no punishment. Like I said previously if they would have used the ethics of virtue system they would have went about things in an honest manner and even though it might not have saved the life of Detective Griffiths it would have put his killer in jail. Ethics training for our officers is very important to maintain order (Papenfuhs,2011). However, when really spending some time and thinking about this situation I wish our legal system could in some way take into account the pressure we put on cops and when we know for an absolute fact a serious crime as been committed that the criminal could still be punished regardless of the mistakes of cops. I don’t think the people should be able to get off that easy simply because of a legal mishap and in fact disgusts me that his has happens numerous times every year.
The totality of circumstances provides that one must look past each individual aspect of the scenario and look at the scenario as a whole. In Officer Smith’s case, with the absence of a broken taillight, one must consider that, even though the light was not broken, Officer Smith still would have had lawful reason to pull the vehicle over since it matched the description of a vehicle in a previous murder case. Even though this car was not the vehicle involved, the driver gave the Officer probable cause to believe that it could be by fleeing the scene. With the totality of circumstances considered, I believe the entire scenario would be found
Does this work? Tony’s wife Margot is the one that is planed to get murdered, by C.A. Swan also known as Lesgate. Nobody believes Margot, that she isn’t the bad guy that she is the victim, right up until the key doesn’t fit. Frederick Knott is the author of “Dial M for Murder.” In this play there were several reasons why Tony’s plan to murder his wife did not work out.
Leo Coates June 2013 Q4 - Involuntary manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of a reasonable creature under the Queen's peace without malice aforethought. It is a less serious crime than murder as it does not require the full mens rea – intent. There are three types of involuntary manslaughter, which are committed in different ways – reckless manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, and constructive manslaughter. Robert is potentially guilty of constructive act manslaughter, where there is an unlawful killing that occurs when another crime is taking place intentionally or recklessly. The case of Franklin (1883) demonstrates that for a defendant to be found guilty of constructive manslaughter, the
The fact is that there were several cars involved which means a large number of witnesses. The reality is that more than one person saw the accident the way that it actually happened and will be able to say that Jackson is the one that caused it, not the woman. Even if this were not the case Jackson has a moral obligation to step forward and say that he caused the accident. Moral reasoning involves “reasoning from moral rules, principles, or standards and resolving conflicts among them, thereby placing limits on what one may do with a clear conscience (Barnet & Bedau 399). In other words does the decision you are making go against your own morals, principles, or standards.
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.
In the reading, “Brock grants that voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, is the deliberate killing of an innocent person” (164). In a sense, he states this may not always be wrong and also explains that when actively killing someone who wants to die really is not different from just allowing a patient to die, on a moral basis. He argues, on the premises of permitting euthanasia, that the potential good consequences outweigh the potential bad