Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a Complete Fail.
Introduction
The question of whether an accused should be acquitted on the grounds of voluntary intoxication is an ongoing debate amongst academics. On the one hand, a logical legal approach to the matter is one that requires the existence of all elements of a crime for a successful conviction. On the other hand, is the issue of policy considerations. It has been accepted that intoxication may impair mental faculties including the cognitive and conative capacities, subsequently leading to lack of criminal capacity in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act . If an accused kills a person while in the state of severe intoxication, in terms of jurisprudential approach, the accused will be acquitted for murder due to lack of criminal capacity that’s due to intoxication. This
…show more content…
Snyman is of the view that a person who is voluntarily intoxicated and commits an offence in this state, ought not to have a ground for complaining. He further states that punishment theories such as retributive and deterrent, demand that the intoxicated culprit should not be allowed to hide behind his drunkenness to escape liability.
Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (thereafter, the “Act”) reads as follows, “Any person who consumes or uses any substance which impairs his or her faculties to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her acts or to act in accordance with that appreciation, while knowing that such substance has that effect, and who while such faculties are thus impaired commits any act prohibited by law under any penalty, but is not criminally liable because his or her faculties were impaired as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the penalty which may be imposed in respect of the commission of that
In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).
As a result of the discrimination within the criminal justice system traffic stops are composed of mainly African American and Hispanics. These minorities are targeted within the streets as criminals by police officers. A video from The Orland Sentinel showed major evidence of racial profiling by police. Within the video there more than one thousand people’s roadside stops shown. With watching one hundred and forty-eight hours of video, statistics acquired were that “Almost 70 percent of the motorists stopped were black or Hispanic. More than 80 percent of the cars that were searched were driven by blacks and Hispanics. Although deputies contend they stop cars only for legitimate traffic violations - as required by the Florida Supreme Court
If a person is intoxicated and acts out in public , the (MPC) states it is not a defense it is just and act until the person gives off an negative element that leads to an offense (section 2.08). As I stated in my paragraphs above the (MPC) states in (section 210.1) that criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide. It also states in section 210.4 that a negligent homicide is a felony of a third degree and which they have to pay fine of $5,000 the offense they are convicted of. Article 211 (section 211.0) states that if a person is guilty of and assault him or she has committed, knowingly known that they were reckless and caused injuries to another human being. When someone is recklessly endangering other around them they presume that they are pointing any weapon or firearm in that direction of the other person, but the actor can believe the firearm is not loaded. Also that person know they are wrongful for aiming the object at another knowing that they are about to commit a crime at the time they harm others. The (MPC) states that even when a person commits sexual assault they know that the other person is unware of what sexual act is going on if there under the age of 10, but if the person is less than 21 know what’s going on, but the actor is responsible for his own supervision of
The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was proposed to Congress in 1789 by James Madison in response to the Anti- Federalist movement that lobbied for an extended amount of rights that would further safeguard liberty. The 4th amendment in particular was drafted to acknowledge the abuse of the writ of assistance, a “search warrant” issued by the British government to search boats that were thought to contain smuggled material in Colonial America. The 4th amendment can be broken down into 3 parts: what activities are considered to be a “search” or a “seizure”; what is a probable cause for a “search” and “seizure” and finally, how violations should be dealt with. The evolution of the 4th amendment is long and tumultuous, starting from what it meant at time of drafting, to the controversy over different interpretations in modern times. Through all the controversies and the debate over the meaning of the 4th amendment, the essence is always the same: to protect man’s liberty.
“Drink the first. Sip the second slowly. Skip the third. The speedway ends at the cemetery” (Rockne). Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol related crashes totals more than 51 billion. In Recent discussions of drunk driving, a controversial issue has been whether the driving while intoxicated laws should be increased due to the amount tax payers are paying for drunk driving crashes. On the one hand. Some argue that the driving laws for driving drunk should remain the same and not change. From this perspective the laws about driving under the influence should greatly increase to be stricter, this will help decrease the death rate per year in the United States. On the other hand, however others argue that the laws about driving while drunk are already too strict and should remain unchanged. In sum, then, the issue is whether the laws about driving drunk should be greatly increased to be more effective, or remain unchanged. Because drunk driving can result in unnecessary and premature deaths, unsafe roadways, billions of dollars spent on taxpayers due to DUI’S, and losing a loved one. Drunk driving laws should be altered to be more efficient.
Throughout history, society has engaged in taking substances such as alcohol, that alter our physical being or our psychological state of mind. There are many experiences and pressures that force people to feel like they have to drink in order to cope with life, but for many alcohol is a part of everyday life, just like any other beverage. Alcohol is introduced to us in many ways, through our family, television, movies, and friends’. These “sociocultural variants are at least as important as physiological and psychological variants when we are trying to understand the interrelations of alcohol and human behavior”#. How we perceive drinking and continue drinking can be determined by the drinking habits we see, either by who we drink with, or the attitudes about drinking we learn over the years. The chances of people drinking in ways that can harm others and ultimately themselves can be seen by the correlation of educational lessons, cultural beliefs and the usage of alcohol. Looking at all the possibilities, the complex question we must ask is why do people drink? Is it through their defiance of law, the accessibility of alcohol, teachings of others or the values set in place in their society?
right is violated in any way it is most likely the violator would face criminal charges or
PURPOSE: To persuade my audience NOT to drink and drive Every person is accountable for his or her own “right to drink”. Failure to treat this or any “right” responsibly has consequences. The person’s “right” can and should be taken away when the failure to act responsibly endangers others.
In conclusion to alcoholism and alcohol abuse everybody who has an alcohol problem should hear everything contained within this paper. The number one drug killer is alcohol, even if all the deaths of overdoses were combined alcohol still makes up for more deaths. If you cannot drink responsibly you will pay for it in the long run.
In 1968, Herbert Packer was a Stanford University law professor who constructed two models of criminal process, due process and crime control. The due process model was Packer’s view that criminal defendants should be presumed innocent, courts must protect suspects’ rights, and there must be come limits placed on police powers. The crime control model is a model that emphasizes law and order and argues that every effort must be made to suppress crime, and to try, convict, and incarcerate offenders. Packer’s crime control model suggested that most cases ended in guilty please or withdrawals. In contrast, his due process model suggested that cases that go to trail and are appealed were the most influential. The due process and crime control model differentiate in
“About 1,825 college students in the United States alone die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries and 1.2 and 1.5 percent admit that they have tried to attempt suicide due to drinking”(Binge Drinking in College). The factors of binge drinking eventually add up and the misconception of the brain can prompt fatalities. “In 2014, Tucker Arnold, who attended Texas Tech lost his life in an automobile accident with an extreme amount of alcohol in his system” (Recent Alcohol-Related Student Deaths). Another report was released a week after Arnold’s death, “Dalton Debrick, only 18 at the time, died after becoming unresponsive due to alcohol intoxication” (Recent Alcohol-Related Student Deaths). These are only a few examples of how lethal being caught up in the partying scene can actually
Driving under the influence is one of the most common and dangerous situations in which anyone can be or be placed. Drinking and driving is a serious offence that can cause someone to be physically harm or even killed. Not only are you putting yourself at risk but you are also risking the lives of passengers in the car as well as any other car and occupants sharing the road with you. Many people believe that increasing fines for drunk driving offenders will play a compelling role in cutting down the occurrences of driving under the influence. However, while harsher DUI laws will look effective on paper, they will not make a significant step in the fight against drunk driving. Although there is a law enforced for drinking and driving in the
“Statistics state that on average between 1,250 and 1,500 lives are able to inflict approximately 64,000 injuries each year in Canada due to impaired driving. What’s most interesting is that people who are young are particularly vulnerable when driving under poor circumstances. Youths who have died in car accidents, a whapping 45% of these deaths have been linked to the use of alcohol. What is an absolute atrocity to hear is that people who are under the age of twenty five, ultimately, one in every three people die in a car accident that is alcohol-related. Common excuses people use when driving in this manner often had said: “I only had a few drinks”. “I feel fine.” Or “I only drove a short distance.” However, in the end these excuses prove to be utterly insignificant when innocent lives have either been injured or taken in the process because people are in denial and are simply refusing to take responsibility for their own
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
In Intro to Criminal Justice class, I had the opportunity to learn about the Criminal Justice System more thoroughly. I learned that there are three components that make up the Criminal Justice System such as the courts, law enforcement, and corrections. Each component has its own role in making sure the the Criminal Justice System is functioning properly. If one of these components are not efficient the Criminal Justice system will not be as strong as it could be.