Provocation as a Defence
For a person to be criminally liable they must be commit the relevant
prohibited act, or omission; the actus reus, and also be in the
requisite mental state; mens rea, and also have no valid defence.
Defences available cover situations such as insanity, duress or
intoxication. However the Courts have accepted that there are
situations in which a defendant has committed the relevant actus reus
for murder, and also displayed thee relevant mens rea, and does not
have a reasonable defence, however in the interests of giving the
judges discretion and avoiding the mandatory life sentence dictated by
a verdict of murder, the Courts have prepared to accept a series of
partial defences to murder. The mandatory life sentence is often seen
as unfair, as it does not allow for the circumstances of the case, and
can often lead to juries returning ‘not guilty’ verdicts, in
particularly emotional cases where they do not believe the defendant
qualifies as ‘murderer’. The defences introduced are considered
special defences, in that they are only available to defendants
charged with murder, and are also partial defences in that they do not
completely absolve the defendant from liability; but instead allow a
verdict of manslaughter.
It has been suggested that as many as 45 percent of killings are
committed by people who lose their temper. The partial defence of
provocation has existed for many years in common law, in the case of
Maddy 1671 the courts accepted a plea of provocation after a man
killed his wife after discovering her committing adultery. The defence
of provocation was extended to men who killed their mistresses...
... middle of paper ...
...t’s verdict, and substituted a
verdict of manslaughter, and the House of Lords affirmed this
decision, deciding that mental characteristics and instabilities
should be considered relevant not only to the gravity of the
provocation but also to the standard of self-control to be expected.
There have been class to reform of even abolish provocation as a
defence, some groups are outraged that the defence creates the
impression that society accepts extreme violence as a response to
actions or insults which do not include physical threats. However
others defend provocation, arguing that ‘murder’ is an inappropriate
term for killing under provocation , and without the defence
available, juries may acknowledge this leading to the increase of
acquittals in cases where the defendant was seen as morally less worth
of blame.
On September 12th, Carmela Buhbut, a battered wife who shot her husband to death 31 times from a close range, was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. She then appealed to the Supreme Court against the severity of the sentence. No less than three different justices held the complicated appeal- Bach, Kedmi and Dorner. All three of them, agreed that there is no doubt, that taking a person’s life is a crime which Buhbut should be punished for. However, only of them, justice Kedmi, thought the appeal should be dismiss in limine.
What does the story of Atlas Shrugged have to say about the relative powers of good and evil and the conditions under which one is victorious over the other?
I think the number one cost of the American civil war was social because first off there was a lot of people dying in the war, over 600,000 Americans died in the civil war. The second cost of the American Civil war is political because the North and the South were divided. The south did not want to abolish slavery but the north did. There were two nations: Union and Liberty, and Union and Slavery. Abraham Lincoln who was running for president during the war wanted to end slavery but there was always disagreements. The third cost of the American Civil war is economic because it affected everyone and their life. The economy was bad because of the war will make reconstruction
The death penalty was brought to America in the 17th century. As of January 1, 2011, more than three thousand people were sentenced under the death penalty in the United States (Death Penalty Information Center). There are currently thirty-four states with the death penalty and out those states 1,272 inmates have been executed to date (Death Penalty Information Center). A number of inmates have perhaps been on death row for more than a decade. With the increase public support for the death penalty and the growing number of executions indicate there is an issue for competency (Bonnie, 1990). Therefore, “many states have begun to encounter some condemned inmates asserting that their prolonged confinement under sentence of death has left them mentally incompetent (Small & Otto, 1991)”. These inmates on death row live with the knowledge of their approaching death and some of these inmates are often mentally incompetent.
Now that we have seen the shortcomings of two popular views of violence, Coady proposes his positive account; namely, that we ought to adopt a restricted definition. He begins with a dictionary definition (physical force with intent to damage/injure another), but he then observes that this is too restrictive and that we ought to include some psychological considerations. A restricted definition, Coady argues, is less morally loaded than the other two views given that it allows us to call an act a violent one without being committed (at least not as committed as the other views) to a certain ethical
On the evening of February 26, 2012 a 17-year old unarmed boy, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon was killed by a man named Andrew Zimmerman, who stated that self-defense justified the murder of this young boy. An individual who doesn’t know the background of this case would reasonably believe that Trayvon Martin may have attacked Zimmerman, in which he used self-defense. However, Zimmerman was the initial aggressor in this case, whereas he sought after Trayvon Martin for reasons of suspicion. At Zimmerman’s trial on July 13, 2013 the jury reached a verdict of “not guilty” of the murder of Trayvon Martin. So we ask, how does one become acquitted of a murder on self-defense,
It is widely believed, and reported that crime is higher in communities with higher populations of minority residents. While the authors of Criminological Thought (1990), overviewed what they considered the foundational theorists and contributors to the field of criminology, not all of those examined within the text emphasized the same things. It is the writers position that three of those contributors examined within the book, the respective theories of Earl Richard Quinney, Edwin Sutherland, and Robert Ezra Park, specifically Park’s Social Disorganization Theory, Quinney’s Conflict Theory, and Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory are often utilized to describe the plight of instability in urban communities and crime. This paper
As of late, self-defense has been a very controversial topic thanks to the trial and acquittal of George Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin. This case gave American’s the cause to question Stand Your Ground Laws, the President of the United States Barak Obama even showed his concern for our nation. Many people felt that Zimmerman was acquitted due to a racial bias, but in accordance with Stand Your Ground laws and other self-defense statutes it is clear that this is not a racial issue. George Zimmerman is a 33-year-oldHispanic man running a neighborhood watch in his affluent gated community in Sanford, Florida. On the evening of February 26, 2012 Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old
Stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that allow an individual to use deadly force if he/she felt that their life is in grave danger. The Controversy behind Stand-your-ground law is often criticized for encouraging violence. Critics claim that the laws lead to a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude that results in more injuries and deaths than would occur without the law. Stand-your-ground law was passed by the former Florida governor Jeb Bush in 2005. Afterward, many other states have followed mostly the Republican States. The laws expand on the "Castle doctrine," which says that a person is protected under the law to use deadly force in self-defense when his or her property or home is being invaded.
Violence and crime has been a societal issue since the beginning of humanity. There are many methods in which authorities try to deter criminals from acting on impulse. Among the most serious methods of deterrent is the death penalty. The death penalty is sentenced when a heinous crime is committed including, but not restricted to murder, rape, and treason. Capital punishment is one of the most controversial forms of sanction in the United States. The death penalty is legal in 32 states, including California and is outlawed in 18. This subject causes contentious debate amongst people because it allows someone to judge whether or not a person is worthy to live, which some believe is something all-together too powerful to decide. However, others believe it is a powerful tool which will reprimand all menacing criminals, and discourage any future criminals from continuing these offenses. Author Mary Kate Cary, writer of “The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty,” believes that capital punishment is unnecessary and dangerous because innocent people die, it is discriminatory against people from certain ethnic groups, and believes it is cost effective to let a criminal live rather than be sentenced to death, while author of “The Death Penalty Deters Crimes and Saves Lives,” David B. Muhlhausen thinks that the death penalty should be implemented when certain types of crimes are committed because according to him, it deters future crime, it is not discriminatory, and it saves lives. Although authors Muhlhausen and Cary views oppose each other, one being in favor of capital punishment and the other believing it is unnecessary, they both believe in meting out due punishment for vicious offenses.
There is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness of the deterrence doctrine. The deterrence doctrine is dated back to its origins in the 18th century, known to be the Age of Enlightenment. During the 1700s to 1800s, the Classical School of Criminology became the focal point as it commenced to force attention on the “cruel” justice system. The two most influential scholars who have elaborated along the idea of deterrence are Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria, known as the father of classical criminology, believed that people are “being motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and trying to avoid being in pain” (Owen et al., 2012, p. 132). The classical criminology is primarily founded on the notion of liberal volition. That is to say that
Imagine that your daughter is walking home from the store. A man in a black car starts following her. He gets out and begins to follow her by foot. You daughter begins to run in fear. The suspicious character begins running after her. She stops and decides to face her fear. She knees him and pepper sprays him. Seconds later, shots were fired leaving your daughter dead. She is the aggressor and he is justified for shooting her in “self-defense” under the stand your ground law. The stand-your-ground law is a law that states that an individual has the lawful right to use any level of forces, including lethal force, if they are faced in any situation where they feel harmed. The first “stand your ground” law was passed in April of 2005 in Florida.WHile the “Stand Your Ground” law can be used as self defense, it puts the lives of African American youth in danger by allowing people to take unfair advantage of the law: therefore, O.C.G.A 16-3-23.1 should be prohibited.
Social science research has discredited the claim that execution deters murder. The majority of murders are committed in the heat of passion, and/or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, when there is little thought given to the possible consequences of the act. "Hit men" and other murderers who plan their crimes beforehand, intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught.
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.
The defense of necessity is on the principle of “necessity, and not emergency”. As a justificatory defense, it stresses on the actor choosing an option between two “evils” and engaging the lesser of them. Basically, significance of the defense of necessity involves a balancing of evils. The criminal offence committed by the defendant must involve a lesser evil. Basically, necessity is a defense when the defendant kills one person in order to save the lives of many others . Brooke LJ in the case of Re A stated that there are three requirements for the application of the defense of necessity. Firstly, the act is needed to avoid the unavoidable and irreparable evil. Second, no more should be done than is reasonably necessary for the objective to be attained. Lastly, the evil inflicted must be proportionate to the evil avoided.