(page 234) .Misfit says that he knows that his dad died because of flu. So, he was punished wrongly. He says, “I found out the crime don’t matter. You can do one thing or you can do another, kill a man, because sooner or later you’re going to forget what it was you done and just punished for it” (page 235). Here he says that weather you kill people or take tire of car you will be punished anyway and when you will be punished you will forgot what you did and will be punished for no reason.
Dyck goes on to argue in his essay “The Social Construction of Conscience” that Abner is committing these crimes as a social justice. Abner acts as though he has something against the society he is living in which makes it seem as low he has some kind of madness. He shows frustration by destroying the property of those who he feels like have wronged him. After being convicted of burning his neighbor’s barn just because of some argument over a pig, him and his family are banished from the county and are committed to having a nomadic
The role of fault also varies in criminal law. Fault is integral to the Actus Reus element of a crime. In order to be found guilty of a criminal offence, the defendant must commit the Actus Reus voluntarily. If the accused is not in control of his or her actions for any reason, then they cannot be said to be acting voluntarily, so is not at fault. Criminal defences such as automatism and duress will result in an acquittal as they prove that the D did not act
Besides, George knew that Lennie would not understand the reasoning behind Curley lynching him, he could have gone crazy and killed the whole ranch staff. George knew that, so he tricked Lennie into his own comfortable death. The fact that Lennie died next to his lifelong friend, imagining an unattainable dream that George and
The ultimate result being the unfixed lock leaves the shop exposed to thieves who ransack the place leaving Farhad without an income source for his family. farhad decides the only justice is to gun down Ruiz for the loss Farhad believes he caused by not fixing the door. In examining how the conflict might have been resolved, it’s important to look at the communication styles of each participant. When we first see Daniel earlier in the film, he is being verbally disrespected by a rich and racist client who believes he is untrustworthy, and possibly a gang member. As this scene unfolds, we see Daniel finishing the locksmithing job quietly.
Finally, he lies to Alex, copes, social worker, Dean, and Aunty Jean. “Dad is sick” Martyn says to his Aunt. He doesn’t want anyone to know that he killed his father so he covers it up with lies. He confirms that he lied because he was scared. He also said “it’s only wrong if you get caught.
There was an old practice where a galvanometer was applied directly to each detonator for testing purposes. They were injured as a result of an explosion at the defendant's quarry caused by the brothers' negligence. They had insufficient wire to test a circuit to allow them to test from a shelter. Another worker had gone to fetch more wire but the brothers decided to go ahead and test with the shorter wire. Each brother claimed against the defendant based on their employer's vicarious liability for the negligence and breach of statutory duty of the other brother.
However in other cases it can be excluded or restricted if the reasonableness test is satisfied. Likewise s.2 UCTA provides that liability for negligence cannot be excluded where death or personal injury is caused (s.2(1)), but in other cases of negligence liability may be excluded or restricted provided the clause satisfied the reasonableness test (s.2(2)). The reasonableness test is covered under s.11 UCTA. One of the issues with the test is that the Act does not explicitly define “reasonableness”. What it does emphasise however, is the requirement for the contract term to be a “fair and reasonable one to
This is because the name he used was of a person who had died, and, although still on the list, was not entitled to vote. Likewise, in Fisher v Bell 1960, a seller was found not guilty of “offering to sell” an offensive weapon as the goods on display in his shop window amounted to an invitation to treat and not an offer. The Act had to be amended the next year to include the word “display”. There are a number of disadvantages with using this rule, often referred to as the “dictionary rule”, since dictionaries may give several meanings to the same word. It also restricts judicial creativity and holds back development of the law to reflect changing social conditions.
Critical Evaluation of Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Firstly, the language used in the Offences Against the Person Act (OAP Act) 1861 has been criticised for being antiquated, unclear and out-of-date. Terminology such us ‘grievous’ and ‘malicious’ which is used to describe s20 and s18 of the OAP Act isn’t generally used in the modern day language. Lord Steyn commented in Ireland and Burstow that the ‘Victorian legislator would not have in mind psychiatric harm’ with regard to grievous bodily harm. Furthermore, it would appear that the word ‘malicious’ is related to evil or hatred however in legal terms it refers to intention or recklessness. Although the judiciary may understand those terms, the defendant and the jury may not which may in turn lead to uncertainty.