Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A case of murder analysis
I Facts The victim fell from her bathroom window, in which she and the defendant resided. Prior to the fall, the victim was in an argument with the defendant leading to him forcibly entering their bathroom. Although the series of events leading up to the victim’s fall are unclear, it has been suggested in the prosecution case that the victim was either pushed out of the window by the defendant or voluntarily jumped out. II Issues A Whether D’s act caused V’s death? B If so, whether V jumping out of the window broke the chain of causation? III Rules A Causation 1 Legal or causal responsibility (a) Natural consequences Mason J citied in R v Grimes and Lee that: ….Where the conduct of the accused induces in the victim a well-founded apprehension of physical harm such as to make it a natural consequence that the victim would seek to escape and the victim was …show more content…
B Novus Actus In R v Roberts, it was found that an “unreasonable voluntary act breaks the chain of causation.” Although, McHugh’s citing People v Lewis provides that “…. persons subjected to violence or the threat of violence do not always think rationally or act reasonably. If a person committed suicide to avoid torture and eventual death, I do not see why the causal chain should be broken”. Mason J finds that: ...an act done by a person of self-preservation, in the face of violence or threats of violence on the part of another, which results in the death of the first person, does not negative causal connect between violence or threats of violence and the death. IV Application A
On the evening of Ms. Heggar¡¦s death she was alone in her house. Eddie Ray Branch, her grandson, testified that he visited his grandmother on the day that she was killed. He was there till at least 6:30 p.m. Lester Busby, her grandnephew, and David Hicks arrived while her grandson was still there and they saw him leave. They then went in to visit with Ms. Heggar. While they were there, Lester repaid Ms. Heggar 80 dollars, which he owed her. They left around 7:15 p.m. and went next door to a neighboring friend¡¦s house. David Hick¡¦s went home alone from there to get something but returned within ten minutes of leaving. Because he was only gone for 5-10 minutes, prosecution theorized TWO attacks on Ms. Heggar because he could not have killed his grandmother during this 5-10 minute period alone. At 7:30 p.m., 15 minutes after the two had left, an insurance salesman called to see Ms. Heggar. He knocked for about 2 or 3 minutes and got no reply. Her door was open but the screen door was closed. Her TV was on. He claimed to have left after about 5 minutes and then he returned the next morning. The circumstances were exactly the same. With concern, he went to the neighbor¡¦s house and called the police. His reasoning for being there was because the grandmother¡¦s family had taken out burial insurance three days before she had died.
When Mathews heard Clinton begin to yell and hurt Donna through the phone, he called the police. When the police arrived, they noted the disheveled state of the house and the accused’s head injury. Note that, according to Dr. Kim Lenore, a BWS expert, the accused was at the fourth stage of BWS, in which the woman has already realized that she is not at fault for the abuse she is receiving and begins to realize that there is a way out and that she can find it. At this point, however, the defendant lied to the patrol officer and claimed that her injuries resulted from a fall. Dr. Lynn Johnson, Yale Law professor and psychology expert, agrees that this “excuse … is characteristic of the guilt stage. The defense can’t have it both ways.” If Donna had really been undergoing BWS in the way that she and the defense’s expert witness, Dr. Lenore, had claimed, she would’ve had no qualms against telling the police the truth and having Clinton arrested for domestic abuse. She didn’t do this because she had already planned her own way
Killing or assisting in suicide is not a morally indifferent act. Dr. Kevorkian says, “My intent was only to relieve their suffering, an act that inevitably killed the person.” He justified his acts, because most of his patients had Lou Gehrig’s Disease and could not feed or care for themselves (Murphy, 1999). Although only the good effect was intended, the bad effect (death) was the means to the good effect. The proportionality between the good and bad effect must be analyzed for each specific case. Dr. Kevorkian’s acts violated at least two of the principles of double effect, so they are not ethically justified.
Causality has been a pivotal concept in the history of philosophy since the time of the Ancient Greeks. After David Hume, however, many have questioned whether there is (or can be) any metaphysical meaning of causality, or valid inferences based upon it. Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983) has rethought and reformulated the question of causality in light of its historical roles, well-known criticisms, and relevant contemporary knowledge. In doing so, he has achieved a unique perspective on the subject which should be of great interest to those concerned with causality and any of its applications.
One constant between all cultures is the understanding that all lives will come to an end. Throughout one’s lifetime, virtue, character, and morality are sought, through different ideals and methods, with the overall endgame being the most ethical and desirable outcome possible. There are times, however, when an individual may feel like there is no hope of reaching a successful existence; therefore the act of suicide becomes a viable option. The decision to voluntarily take one’s life has always been a topic of discussion on ethical grounds. Whether or not the decision to die is an ethical one can be argued depending on from which ethical theory the act is being evaluated.
intimidating situation from which the victim feels he or she cannot escape. In Rape in the Fields,
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from that person or a third person information or confession, punishing that person for an act committed or suspected to have been committed, or intimidation or dehumanizing that person or other persons” (Brecher).
...ance of a child engaging in a neutral activity as it discourages and prevents that child from coming into contact with a person who acts in a criminal nature.
This case, among many others have caused our legal system to decide whose rights should be upheld, the victims or the aggressors? In this paper the history of self-defense laws, psychological benefits, and societal benefits will be discussed. Ultimately, the evidence shown throughout this essay will prove the absolute necessity of self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws. Not only does Stand Your Ground shift the focus of criminal law from victim to perpetrator (as it should be), our right to self-defense is written in the Constitution, and studies have shown that Stand Your Ground deters criminal behavior. (Holliday, 2012) Although some find Stand Your Ground as an open door for racial biases in criminal proceedings, the studies that prove that statement to be true are not taking into account the background and environment that the crimes occur in, simply looking at race and not any other factor of the case is not enough to prove a racial
Causation is the relation between cause and effect, or the act of bringing about an effect, which may be an event, a state, or an object. The concept of causation has long been recognized as one of the fundamental philosophical importance. Hume called it the “cement of the universe”: causation is the relation that connects events and objects of this world in significant relationships. Further, causation is intimately related to explanation: to ask for an explanation of an event is, to ask for its cause. But according to Richard Taylor, causation is not that simple and discoverable relationship between states, processes and events. “What we want, then, is a conceptual analysis of this basic concept [causation] we so securely possess.”
If an action would run a high risk of getting yourself killed, you might think twice before committing such an act. If taking one guilty life can save even one innocent life, it’s doing its job. In 1973, Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis that produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, seven lives were spared due to deterrence.3 Deterring a future killer from taking a life does not only save that victim's life, but it might also save the would be killer’s life. They might see how committing this one act would literally end their own life, and because the fear of death looms over everyone, they may refrain from doing
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
I. No one power was more to blame than the other, as a chain reaction
Smith, M. (2002, October 24). THE RODRIGUEZ CASE: A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE.Government of Canada . Retrieved December 26, 2010, from dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp349-e.htm#B. Section 12(txt)