1) X was not raped under the extrinsic test because to be committing rape under the extrinsic test, the rape should occur under an act of force beyond the physical effort which required to achieve sexual penetration. Even though, when Y and other team members tell X that X must submit to hazing, X agreed to whatever is involved. Then again, X withdraw X consent during the sexual penetration. However, under the extrinsic test the law limits the liability. On the other hand, X was raped under the intrinsic test. Because Y and other team member employed little force to achieve sexual penetration. X has the strength and stamina, which may have helped X to fight back. X continues to submit to the penetration without any physical resistance. Furthermore, the prosecutor should ask X at trial if two days prior to the alleged hazing if X and W engaged in a physical, loving relationship. The Rape Shield Statute will not prohibit this question. knowing the cause of the bruises is relevant evidence that is valuable in determining a defendant guilt or innocence.
2) The
…show more content…
Because the voluntary manslaughter involves the unintentional killing without the desire to do evil. Also, X did not kill W with reasonably actually provoked, also not in a heat of passion. X kills W because W uttered insults towards X in the past based on X’s race and ethnicity. According to the textbook, most courts refuse to recognize insulting and racist language as adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter. Furthermore, X should be convicted for the first-degree murder for killing W. X action has both deliberation and premeditation. X act was thought out prior to killing W, which mean X was premeditated before committing the crime. Lastly, the insults towards X was in the past; therefore, deliberation will play a role because X intent to kill W was carried out in a cool state of mind in furtherance of the design to
How and Why the U.S. Supreme Court developed the law governing the use of “Victim Impact Statements” (VIS)?
Let’s imagine you wake up one morning and have been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and they have attached you to a famous unconscious violinist, who has a fatal kidney sickness. Since you are the only one with a similar blood type, the Society of Music Lovers has plugged the violinist’s circulatory system into your own; your kidneys are cleaning the deadly poison from the famous violinist’s blood. It will take him nine months to recover from this illness, but you must remained plugged into him. However, if you desire, you may safely detach yourself from him, but he will die from his illness. Is it morally permissible to unplug yourself from the violinist?
Successes and Failures of Sexual Offences Act 2003 The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was heralded as a response to shifting social attitudes, encompassing the broad libertarian approach towards sexual behaviour that has become increasingly dominant since the Act that preceded it whilst attempting to account for the myriad of more widespread sexual deviancies and abusive practices that were otherwise poorly regulated by existing statute. It was designed as a regularisation of the law on sexual offences giving a modern and consistent perspective upon the particular offences; one that would allow the courts to proceed on a fairer and less discriminatory basis, both in its prosecution of offenders and it in treatment of victims. Few statutes can have been subjected to the same level of public scrutiny as this Act, emerging from a climate of public concern over the adequate protection of their children and the proliferation of paedophilia. The abnormally low conviction rate for rape as well as socio-criminal phenomena like 'date-rape' or the effect of immigration on acceptable sexual practices were yet more facets of a many-handed debate about how the law should respond to a changing world. Understanding these issues is central to finding the coherent thread upon which different changes in the Act attempt to hang.
The meaning and penalties of rape have progressed throughout the history of America to ensemble the mindset of the time. Records show that a man in the seventeenth century was convicted of attempted rape if "he used enticement and then force toward a woman, driven by the sinful lusts that raged within him...and he allowed her...to scare or fight him off" (Dayton 238). Unfortunately, this definition was not always taken at face value. The leading men of the seventeenth century, likely white men, reformed this definition in a variation of ways to work in their favor when suspected of rape. It can be determined from study of historical information that the reason there are fewer reported rapes against white males in the seventeenth century and more against non-white males was because women gave in to a society driven by the influence and governance of white males in the legal system. This concept is demonstrated through a look into the outcome of a number of rape cases against both white men and non-white men, through an understanding of the helpless station of women, and through a view at the basis of the white man's resentment toward the non-white male: their view of the non-white male as the "other."
...tation parking lot. In the parking lot both cars pull up, Dunn before the SUV, and the guys in the SUV had their music on full blast. Dunn asked them to turn it down and got in an argument with the boys. Dunn reaches for his gun and fires ten times at the SUV. Only one person, Jordan Davis (17) was shot and he was shot twice. Dunn drove away and hours afterwards found out that Davis was dead. Dunn was convicted of 4 out of 5 attempted murder charges and a mistrial declared on the first degree murder charge. Now both cases are very similar the main difference is the verdict. The defendants in both trials could have avoided the confrontation but chose not to. In both cases an underage African American was shot and killed. In both cases the defendants lives were not in danger and the victims were unarmed. So why would they let one be found guilty and the other go free?
Just do the best you can, but it won’t matter?” (Gaines 66). Gentlemen, please contemplate the result of the Plessy v. Ferguson court case. The court case that ultimately made discrimination and segregation the rule of the land. As a result, it was not prohibited to have divided accommodations for black and white Americans as long as they were “equal” (“The Rise and Fall”). Equal. Nothing segregated is equal. Is that why it does not matter whether this man is executed for a crime he did not commit? Is he not equal to the other individuals in this room? Gentlemen of the jury, it is rather apparent the man who undoubtedly could not recite “The Pledge of Allegiance” if you asked him to or even write his name could not have organized and committed an assassination and robbery. Be lenient! If this man is executed, it will be like depriving his godmother of her precious gemstone. Without her precious gemstone she will start to wither like a flower on a cold, winter night and will no longer be on Earth to radiate her kindheartedness. With this, I leave my final remark using the words of Mahatma Gandhi for they are rather wise, “There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts” (“Conscience Quotes”). In the end, this case lies within the conscience of one’s soul and his decision based upon that. Thank you all for your
When engaging in the controversy surrounded around Sandra Bland’s arrest and followed death, one quote comes to mind, “ Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation”(Oscar Wilde). While numerous speculations have been created; for the most part America has divided into two perspectives. Those who believe this case is a suicide with a dash of coincidental, and those who believe this case is a homicide with racial intentions. Many ruling Bland’s case a homicide with racial intentions are treating the case like an axiom; however, this is a unique case that requires more than a glance over social media. Others look at this case blind due to racial beliefs and stereotypes. After conducting a personal investigation, I found error on both sides of the case.
the woman should be allowed to make her own choice, as it her body and
In South Africa, criminal law states that murder can be defined as deliberate, unlawful killing of someone. The defense has to make the case that when Pistorius shot at what he thought was an intruder, that he did not do this intentionally, and he really did this in a mistaken self-defense, which when the self-defense is proven valid, it is lawful. Therefore, the defense has to bring up a reasonable doubt in Pistorius’s favor that it was mistaken self-defense, like he claimed, and the court would then consider if it was a realistic mistake that a sensible person would make in a similar, or the same, situation. The defense has used w...
The question is unthinkable given the conditions: “Did you ever have a sexually transmitted disease?” This is one of the first questions to which a rape victim must respond. In what way does her sexual history play any role in her case against a defendant? We have “double jeopardy” to protect people from unfair prosecution, but rape victims are repeatedly put on trial over and over for crimes perpetrated against them. Prosecutors are allowed to judge rape victims in a critical light, aggressively emphasizing many factors related to her personal life, her appearance, or her action just prior to the rape that she endured. These factors are brought out to influence a jury’s perception of the victim creating doubt about whether the crime may not in fact have been the victim’s fault. Did she deserve it? Was she asking for it? There are cases in which rape victims are treated differently due to the lack of understanding and prejudice which can be brought to bear against victims. Prejudice is the act of forming an unreasonable judgment against another. These prejudgments can affect a victim’s emotional status, actually leading some victims to end up asking themselves if the transgression was their fault. Three cases will reveal the complexity of what is at stake.
60 percent of victims will not report it and most likely will never. Sexual assault is one of the
Statutory rape is when an adult has sexual intercourse with a minor. Every two minutes someone in the U.S is sexually assaulted. There are also many cases of statutory rape, but how many of these statutory rape cases are legitimate? Some people say statutory rape laws are discriminating to males, and in some cases it is, just because they are the adult. Should laws concerning statutory rape be changed depending on the backstory of the case? Or should they continue the same way, and keep punishing the males when it may not be their fault, or if they’ve been tricked by the girl?
According to the Rape Crisis Center, 44 percent of rape victims are under the age of eighteen. 29 percent between the ages of twelve nd seventeen. Nowadays, rapists are saying that the victim is to blame. Victim blaming occurs when a victim of a crime is held responsible, partly if not entirely, for the wrongful act committed against them. Are rape victims really partly to blame? There is no true excuse to raping somebody so why do rapists still blame the victim? The victims are blamed because the rapists want to convince other people and authority that the incident was not their fault. Rape is not caused by arousal from the victim’s appearance only; rapists need to realize that most of the time the victim is wearing appropriate clothing.
Is anyone truly a stranger to nightmares? Has anyone not woken up in a feverish sweat with a racing pulse or pounding heart? Whose eyes have never wildly searched their room for the phantoms of a dream? Now, what if the familiar consolation of learning it was all in your head never came? How do you wake up from a nightmare that is, in fact, a reality? I think I’m getting ahead of myself. What I mean to say is, I was raped, and rape is a nightmare.
Murder is considered a serious crime in our country. The loosely defined term of murder implies that a person who kills another human being with intent is known as being the worst kind of violent crime we see in our society. Any unlawful killing requires that a living person be killed and it does not mean that the guilty person feels any hatred or spite in order to plan and execute the act of murder. Moreover, the destructive acts that end peoples lives are classified as homicides which include manslaughter and first and second degree murder. More important, the justice system has put different labels on such crimes, but it also allows room for criminals to get away with murder.