We have to advise the CPS on whether Maisie can be liable for a homicide offence and why. Maisie stabbed Jane with a butter knife on the thigh causing her to lose blood and die. To fulfil Actus Reus, Maisie’s actions need to be sufficient for murder of her flatmate Jane.
“Murder is when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king’s peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, wounded, or hurt, etc die of that wound or hurt, etc within a year and a day after the same.”
Actus Reus is the Latin for ‘guilty act’. Firstly, the Actus Reus of Murder depends on conduct, consequence and causation. Generally, conduct is a physical act done by the defendant, and in this case the offence is also capable of commission by omission . In Miller the defendant was guilty for not informing the authorities. In Stone and Dobinson , the defendants were charged for breach of duty to act. Subsequently from Maisie’s stabbing, Jane died 15 minutes later due to the loss of blood and therefore the crime was a result one and there has been a “guilty act”.
…show more content…
Causation is divided in two categories, factual causation and legal causation . Factual causation refers to the rational connection between D’s conduct and the criminal result, such that the result would not have come if it was not for D’s conduct. Now we need to ask, “did the result come about because of Defendant’s conduct?” As established in R v White , D was not guilty of murder, but he was guilty for attempted murder. In this case, Maisie’s behaviour and act was the one who caused the death of Jane and therefore the result did come from the Defendant’s
Murder should include the elements of purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances showing extreme indifference to the value of human life (Brody & Acker, 2010).
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.
In the Worcester Cold Storage fire the defendants were initially charged with six counts each of involuntary manslaughter. However the Superior Court dismissed the incitements because the court declared that the defendants did not have a duty to act (report the fire) and that their actions did not satisfy the standard of wanton and reckless conduct required for a manslaughter charge. However, in the appeal the commonwealth presented evidence that the defendants did have a duty to act and their behavior at the time of and after the fire shows a pattern of wanton and reckless behavior.
Murder at the Margin is a murder mystery involving various economic concepts. The story takes place in Cinnamon Bay Plantation on the Virgin Island of St. John. It is about Professor Henry Spearman, an economist from Harvard. Spearman organizes an investigation of his own using economic laws to solve the case.
“Murder on a Sunday Morning” directed by the documentary filmmaker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, is a documentary film based on the false conviction of an innocent 15-year-old black African-American teenager, Brendon Butler, who got arrested when he was on his way to a job interview. The case originated from the assassination of a tourist from Georgia, Mary Ann Stephens, who at the time of the incident was 65 years old and was shot dead while she was on vacation in Jacksonville, Florida in May of 2000 with her husband. This film emphasizes multiple errors made by the police and witness during the arrest and trial of Brendon. Also displays the erroneous eyewitness identification, the non-orthodox interrogations, moreover the false confession written
Geter, Peter. “ Murder of Crying baby was premeditated.” Daily Record. 23 June 2003: Page 1.
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
The major theme of Andre Dubus’ Killing,s is how far someone would go for the person they love. It is important to note the title of the story is killings and not killers, for the reasoning that the story does not just focus on two deaths or two murderers but rather the death of marriage, friendship, youth, and overall, trust.
Is murder ever truly justified? Many people might proclaim the adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right,” while others would argue that the Old Testament Bible states, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Deuteronomy 19:21). Andre Dubus explores this moral dilemma in his short story, Killings. The protagonist, Matt Fowler, a good father and husband, decides to take revenge for his son's murder. Richard Strout is a bad man who murders his soon-to-be ex-wife's lover. These facts are complicated by the complexity of interpersonal relationships when seen through the lens of Matt’s conviction, Strout’s humanity, and ultimately Matt’s personal sacrifice on behalf of his loved ones. Though on the surface this tale might lead someone to think that Dubus is advocating for revenge, a closer look reveals that this a cautionary tale about the true cost of killing another human as readers are shown how completely Matt is altered by taking a life.
The article “The Murder They Heard” written by Stanley Milgram and Paul Hollander is a response to the article that Martin Gansberg “38 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police”. Milgram and Hollander explain why they do not agree that the neighbors of Catherine Genovese should have called the police. Milgram and Hollander give reasons why they disagree with Gansberg, and why I should agree with what they are saying. After reading both articles, I felt very conflicted with who I agree with, but after much deliberation, I realized that I agree more with Milgram and Hollander. The neighbors should not be blamed for Genovese’s death. We should try to understand why they did not call the police. There are a few things you need to take into consideration,
unworthy to live among mankind, nothing to make it probable that the crime was an
When viewed from a strictly medical, psychological aspect, Andrea Yates medical history indicates that after the birth of her first child, she began to suffer from various forms of depression and suicide attempts. If one only examines the paper trail and doesn’t think beyond what the medical history does or does not indicate, then perhaps, Andrea would be innocent by reason of mental insanity as the 2006 acquittal suggest. However, when viewed form a legal aspect there are several inconstancies that challenge if this former nurse was insane or if she in fact premeditated the murder of her children as well as her acquittal.
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.
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.