In this case Toby has been reckless and it seems that he also intended to cause the harm because he was angry. By using the case of Haystead, Ken falling backwards and hitting his head was entirely and immediately the result of Toby’s action in punching him. So although this is indirect application of force, the injury is one of grievous bodily harm which would fall under S20 (malicious inflicting grievous bodily harm). The defence for Toby could be intoxication but only if the intoxication has made him incapable of forming mens rea, he could use this defence. Voluntary Intoxication on its own cannot be a
According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. So, violence destroys community and brotherhood by planting hatred rather than love. The third way based on King is nonviolent resistance. He believes in this way no individual or group need give in to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong. According to king, this is the method that oppressed people must follow to win against the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system.
A human being having a guilty mind “mens rea” planning or knowingly they were going to commit such a crime is sufficient definition to what criminal homicide is. Criminal homicide is criminal because it is a crime committed by an obvious criminal. However, from a legal aspect the “mens rea” and “ actus reus” would have to definitely happen or occur at the same time the homicide takes place, legally called concurrence in order for it to be a legal criminal
Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings. Privation may also concern itself with things not concerned with morality, such as natural evil. For example, a person may have eyesight that falls shorts of perfect eyesight – his eyesight is therefore ‘evil’. This way, God’s omnipotence is justified because evil is defined as an absence of certain qualities. Hence, it doesn’t exist.
Thinking about it more, I realized that hate-crimes legislation doesn't aim to punish the actual crime, but rather the motive (or thoughts) behind it. That's smacks of being more than a little Orwellian to me, besides being something that's very difficult to prove. If someone is continually spouting hateful speech, there's a pretty good chance you can figure out that their motive for a crime might be related to that hate. But what about someone who doesn't give any
It is saying, “Yes I am guilty, but here is why I did it.” It argues that the defendant’s wrongdoing should be excused because he/she lacked the capacity to be held responsible for the crime. Due Process. This requires that the government does not act unfairly or arbitrarily. The government cannot rely on individual judgment and impulse when making a decision, but must stay within the boundaries of reason and the law. There are two types of due process.
Dwyer uses this expression to show that he does not concur with the intentions of the law enforcers who claim that their actions are all for the people’s safety. He uses this expression as a light term that is not as offensive as other terms would have been, yet it achieves its purpose. Dwyer might have chosen this expression to show that he was angry with the current situation, but he did not want to be offensive by using other terms. Biased language is depicted by Dwyer’s use of the expression “illegal aliens”. Labelling a person as an illegal alien portrays that the individual, as opposed to his or her actions, is unlawful.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
It is produced from a feeling of indignation and intolerance for the conduct that takes place in prostitution. That feeling brings the opponents to believe that the society finds itself in a vulnerable position. In this vulnerable state, the community becomes threatened by immorality, but how can they determine whether or not sex for money is immoral? Perhaps, one would consider a profession in taking people’s homes that have been affected by the Recession more criminal than prostitution, but that occupation by no means criminalized. This brings one to the conclusion that it is impossible to assume there is one shared morality because different opinions exist.