Introduction
To what extent is mistaken identity protected by our law. In the sections following, I will address whether someone who mistakenly kills a human being, thinking that it was an animal can escape liability of murder or culpable homicide by incorporating legal principles as well as case law. The legal question therefore is, can X, a hunter, be held liable for murder or culpable homicide if X mistakenly took Y to be an animal in the field?
Definition of a crime
A crime is conduct that society believes to be wrong and which harms the interests of a society.
Definition of mistake
Mistake admits knowledge but implies a wrong conclusion. In order for conduct to be regarded a mistake, it must be an essential and genuine mistake. The accused must not have been aware of the mistake to be an unlawful
…show more content…
A good example is murder. The accused shot what he/she had thought was an animal but turned out to be a human being. The defence will be a genuine mistake with regards to the punishable conduct which will be that it is not a crime to kill an animal.
Similar cases of mistaken identity as topic 6
1. The following incident happened in Malaysia: A 34 year old male was mistaken for an animal by two hunters. No arrests were made.
2. A man was shot dead by forest hunters. The victim along with four other males were cutting trees illegally. They saw torch lights and flee as they thought it was forest guards. The victim hid in a bush. The mobile phone of the victim shone and the forest hunters saw the light and opened fire. The victim was dead upon arrival at the hospital. The accused was arrested.
3. R v Mbombela 1933: the following case deals with negligence. The accused believed to have seen a tokoloshe inside his hut. The accused then grabbed a hatchet and started hitting the tokoloshe but it turned out to be his nephew. The accused was convicted of culpable homicide.
Critical analysis of R v
When a Minnesota dentist killed a prized African lion named "Cecil" he received an onslaught of criticism and reignited the debate concerning big game hunting. Is big game hunting wrong? Should big game hunting continue? Big game hunting has been a very controversial topic for some time and these types of questions are being asked daily. There are a lot of people for it and a lot of people against it. This issue causes a lot of extreme behaviors and ideas by both sides. Those who oppose it believe it to be morally wrong, unfair to the animals and damaging to the environment. Those individuals for it believe that it is the citizens' rights and a way to be involved in the environment. Hunting is the law and shall not be infringed upon. In defense of the hunters' I believe that there are five main issues of concern.
Where does the line of sport and murder intersect in hunting? Is it when the species being hunted is able to reason? Or is it when the species being hunted looks just like the hunter? In both movie and film, we see a man fight for his life and another going against all codes of ethics. While Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game” and Ernest B. Schoedsack’s film adaptation both have several similarities, the difference are also apparent in each respective media.
It is believed that a false conviction is the result of an “honest mistake,”. One could disagree because wrongful convictions
How to appropriately and fairly carry out criminal justice matters is something that every country struggles with. A major reason for this struggle is the fallibility of the justice system. It is acceptable to concede that the possibility of human error in every case and investigation may lead to a wrongful conviction. In the case of David Milgaard, however, Canada's Criminal Justice System not only erred, but failed grievously, resulting in millions of dollars wasted, in a loss of public confidence in the system, and most tragically, in the robbery of two decades of one man's life. Factors including, but not limited to, the social context at the time of the crime, the social perception of deviance, the influence of the media, and the misconduct of investigating police and prosecution played a substantial role in the subsequent miscarriage of justice.
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom.
For example, a very recent event of the illegal killing of the lion, Cecil, gained colossal attention throughout social media and the news. However, Cecil’s death also brings up the question of whether trophy hunting is safe after all. Walter Palmer, the killer of Cecil, had purchased a hunting permit for 55,000 dollars; yet, he is put in trial for hunting a lion. Cecil was a protected animal and a local favorite. Palmer claims, however, that he had no knowledge of that prior to his hunt and blames the guides for not notifying him about Cecil (independent.co.uk). The “Cecil case” can lead to a very long, heated discussion, but the main takeaway from this is that trophy hunting can never be 100 percent safe. Although, most trophy hunters believe that they are helping with conservation, they might be doing more harm than good. For
Radelet, Michael L., Hugo A. Bedau, and Constance E. Putnam. "In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases." Google Books. UPNE, 26 May 1994. Web. 02 Dec. 2011. .
The hunter in the story is heard whistling before we even see him appear. With him, he has a gun and a bag full of dead birds. He stuffs birds for a living and enjoys it very much.
...trying to spin the anecdote to support his thesis that deer are a menace to humans.
While a "mistake of fact" can negate mens rea, a "mistake of law" usually can’t. When people do not realize what they are doing is illegal but still do it intentionally, they are almost always guilty. For example, if Person A sells cocaine believing that it is sugar, person A has made a mistake of fact and lacks mens rea. However, if person A ...
Crime is some action/omission that causes harm in a situation that the person/group responsible ‘ought’ to be held accountable and punished irrespective of what the law book of state say.
Reasoning is the way we think and processes something in a logical way. When it comes to thinking, we fight to reason in a correct way, so we can be able to use the process of logic to recognize the different ways we reason incorrectly. When we infer incorrectly, that is a fallacy because any mistake in reasoning is a fallacy. They are nineteen errors separated into four groups. The four teams are fallacies of relevance, fallacies if defective induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity. Throughout my paper I will be explaining the fallacies of false cause and accident to see what they have in common, are they alike, distinct, and if they are related in some, but not all ways. Also, I will be explaining the distinction between fallacies of equivocation and amphiboly.
The conduct itself may be termed as a criminal act. For instance, if a person lies under oath, it represents the actus reus of perjury. In fact, it doesn’t matter whether the lie has been believed, or had any adverse effect on the outcome
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.
...n the case of Bacchan Singh, it was given not to restore the interest of the plaintiff but to show what punishment should a person have to for committing a crime with that much level of seriousness.