Scenario One: Can Ken be convicted of a homicide offense? Explain and justify your answer. Ken can be convicted for a couple different homicide charges in this case and in this paragraph. One of the homicide offenses they can be charged with is reckless homicide code 0142 this would be the charge if Ken had accidentally disclosed the information. Another charge that Ken can be tagged with is first degree homicide code 0110 if it is found that Ken willfully and premeditated doing it.
These are wounds that would mostly likely not be caused by another person. Homicide is the killing of one person by another. Criminal homicide has two categories murder and manslaughter. Non-criminal also has two categories excusable homicide, as in an accident, and justifiable homicide, such as self defense. The difference here is that excusable homicide is when someone never intended to kill and justifiable homicide there was the intent to kill but it was justifiable.
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.
We the prosecution find Mr. Bartholomeu Malinger to be guilty of all charges for the murder of Mr. Jenkins Benign. The insanity defense is used in situations in which the accused did not know what he or she was doing or its consequences, or knew exactly what he or she was doing, but did not know it was wrong (statute 775.027). A felony is technically any criminal offense that is either punishable under the laws of this state, or would be punishable by death or imprisonment in a state penitentiary if committed in this state (statute 775.08). In this case, it is unlawful to issue excusable homicide; which clearly states that homicide is excusable only in the case of accident and misfortune, or if provoked and not done with a weapon or in a cruel and unusual manner (statute 782.03). The state statute for murder (statute 782.04) states that the unlawful killing of a human being without any premeditated design to affect the death of any particular individual is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony in the first degree.
According to Woodruff, justification makes an action right and an excuse only reduces the blame for an action that is wrong. The important question that is asked in this essay is, “can a soldier at war clear himself of blame for killing civilians on the grounds that he does so to save his own life? (282).” In other words, can a soldier justify himself for killing civilians, or does he just end up with an excuse? As indicated by Woodruff, a soldier with perfectly respectable morals may run in to some tribulations when attempting to justify his actions in war. Self-defense seems to be the key reason for harming, or even killing another person.
Preparatory Crime For a case to be inchoate the person that is accused of the crime must have a guilty mind, or a mens rea, to have all conspiracy against them repelled. Though for them to be guilty of all crimes they must have had intended for the crime to have happened. For a murder to be intent the defendant must have intended for the victim to have been killed. In a case of inchoate, for the defendant to be cleared you need proof of mens rea. Though they may have threatened to kill them.
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
These laws are useful because they establish levels of various crimes -- differentiating, for example, between killing a person by neglect (involuntary manslaughter), killing without intent (voluntary manslaughter), killing on impulse (second-degree murder) and premeditated, planned killing (first degree murder). The nature of these crimes is different one from another, even though the consequence is the same -- unwarranted death of another human being. Because there are the (and other) differences, the penalties are different although there is often considerable overlap of the penalty scales (such as years in prison). Your term "natural crime" is rather troublesome. In the natural world, we do not define crime -- even though predators may take the lives of other creatures on a daily basis, and may employ cunning traps and ambushes to do so.
(Standard of proof. n.d.) In a criminal case the state must prove that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” and has fulfilled each part of the statutory definition of the crime. An example of a criminal case would be first degree murder, because it contains the three basic elements of a crime: willfulness, deliberation and premeditation. However the standard of proof in a civil case is proven by lower standards of
Natural crimes are crimes that are committed intentionally, negligently, recklessly, and knowingly. Natural crimes cause the most harm, occur more frequently and are more widespread. Legal crimes are an act that violates the law in itself but is considered legal given the situation. For example; killing someone in self defense violates the law, however; murder in itself is a crime, but protecting one's life if threatening by bodily harm or injury is legal. Therefore, killing in self defense is a legal crime.