Causation is essential in establishing an actus reus in result crimes, however, there must be evidence that shows that the defendant caused the result of the crime. Causation helps to determine who caused the crime, and for a person to be guilty it must be proved their actions led to the harm caused to the victim through the chain of causation. There are two types of causation: factual and legal, which must be fulfilled before a defendant is liable. Factual causation is based on the facts of the case, using the 'but for ' test to determine whether there would have been harm caused to the victim 'but for ' the defendant 's actions. This is seen in the case of R v Pagett 1983, where the girl would not have died 'but for ' the defendant using her as a shield, or R v White 1910, where the mother would have died 'but for ' White putting cyanide in her drink, as she died from a heart attack. It can be argued that the 'but for ' test is too difficult to apply, especially in cases where there are multiple independent causes. However, this could be solved using the chain of causation and legal causation to determine which act caused the result, or whether both acts did have a 'more than minimal ' …show more content…
One way it can is if the victim 's actions are deemed unreasonable, such as in R v William and Davis 1992, where a hitchhiker jumped from the defendant 's car, worrying that the defendant would steal their wallet, and died from head injuries. This broke the chain of causation as the threat must be proportionate to the action the victim took to escape the threat. Unreasonable actions from a third party can also break the chain of causation. This is see in R v Rafferty 2007, where three defendants beat the victim. Rafferty left to get money out, whilst the other defendants beat and drowned the victim. The defendants who beat and drowned the victim in the absence of Rafferty broke the chain, and so Rafferty was
''Why blameworthiness is the wrong question'' is an informative article that exposes the reasons why the concept blameworthiness is the wrong word to ask in the legal argot. Eagleman proposes to replace the term with the word modifiability, which is a forward-looking term that will help build a social policy based on evidence. The relationship between human biology and the concept of free will, the reasons why blameworthiness is not the correct question and a forward-looking, brain-compatible legal system are the main points the author arguments on. I. Human biology and the concept of free will. Legal systems rest on the assumption that human beings have free will and are completely capable of making their own decisions.
Causation is the cause of death, and in criminal law it is the connecting of conduct and physiological behaviour with a resulting effect, typically a serious injury or death. The analysis of the actus rea and mens read of the accused will assist the investigators in pinpointing the causation of the murder. In criminal law it is absolutely necessary to prove causation in order to convict an individual for first degree murder.
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
Throughout this class we have talked about how various disparities can influence both how and when you need health care, be it for physical or mental reasons. Basically if you aren’t a middle class and above white male with a good job you’re basically fucked. Things such as race, gender, education, the environment you grew up in, who you know, and of course your insurance and income play a huge role in how you experience all aspects of healthcare. As explained in the Link&Phelan article, certain social factors can cuase specific health results. As explained in the article the Fundamental Causes Theory “claims that new mechanisms arise because persons of higher socioeconomic status are able to deploy wide range of resources- including knowledge, money power, prestige, and beneficial social connections- that can be used individually and collectively in different places and at different times to avoid disease and death.” What this means is basically those who are better off are more suited and have more chances to combat sickness and to elongate their lives.
In the Unnatural Causes trailer, one of the speakers said “we carry our history in our bodies”. This statement means that the factors that we come across in daily life impact our health. The decisions one makes will affect his or her body in the future. For example, whether or not one avoids smoking or a poor diet will impact his or her health in the future. During an examination years down the road, it will be able to be determined whether or not that person was able to avoid smoke or junk food. In this way, our past is inscribed into our biology. The history carried in our bodies is not formed solely from conscious decisions-- much of our genetic past is molded by policies and social conditions (“Unnatural causes trailer”, 2008).
A root cause analysis is a systematic approach utilized to identify problems within an event and create a plan for preventing that problem from recurring in the future. To be effective, a timeline of the events are created to help identify those areas that may be the reason for the problem or event, and the relationship between the causal factors and those factors identified to be a reason for the event to have occurred.
Causal determinism is the concept that preceding causes give rise to everything which exists such that reality could be nothing but what it is. Science depends on this idea as it aims to find generalisations about the conjunction of certain causes and effects and thus hold some power of prediction about their future co-occurrence. However, in human interaction people assume each other to be responsible for their acts and not merely at the whim of causal laws. So the question which troubles philosophers is whether causation dictates entirely the course of human action or whether we as agents possess some free will. I will argue that free will is an inescapable illusion of the mind, something which never did nor ever could exist under causal determinism.
concerning the principle of continuity, which Kant mentions it in; “The principle of continuity forbade any leap in the series of appearances (alterations) (in mundo non datur saltus), but also any gap or cleft between two appearances in the sum of all empirical intuitions in space...”, it is necessary for the ship to be upstream in order to be midstream.
Does correlation mean causation? We are reminded on a daily basis that if we do not wear our seatbelt, we will die if we crash. This idea comes from the belief that if one wears a seatbelt they will be saved in the event of a crash. With that, I could say that wearing a seatbelt and surviving a crash are correlated so one must cause the other. However, there have been plenty of instances where people die in a crash while wearing a seatbelt. People tend to confuse correlation with causation because they simply try to justify why a situation happened based on what they think they have knowledge about but also because they do not fully understand causality.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to accept the absence of free will in the universe.
With the rapid increase in crime rates, the defendants must act recklessly or intentionally to be held guilty. Crimes can be classified into two types of intents; general, and specific intent.
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
Correlation without causation is a term used in science to determine that ideas such as, someone’s eating habits being directly correlated with their shirt size. This idea states that the cause of someone wearing a larger shirt is due to how much they eat, however this does not consider other factors that affect one’s body size, such as one’s metabolism. Historians when conducting research will also consider what the causes of events are, and in the process an historian may run into the problem of deciding what correlations are relevant. Many run into the problem of using information that is to outdated to have relevancy, or they exempt vital information by finding a “point of no return.” Historians must deal with these problems, but how?
...lity that the victim may actually be partly to blame for the crime that was committed against them. Therefore it is often the environment that the criminal lives in, and the people that around them that influence them into committing a criminal act.
...sults show that in most cases, innocent people are harmed and convicted for no truthful reason at all.