CRIMINAL LAW<\/p>\n
By (Insert both names)<\/p>\n
(Name of class)<\/p>\n
(Professor\u2019s name)<\/p>\n
(Institution)<\/p>\n
(City, State)<\/p>\n
(Date)<\/p>\n
Criminal Liability is actually what unlocks the logical struc of the Criminal Law.\u00a0Element of a crime that the prosecutor needs to\u00a0prove\u00a0is a principle of criminal liability. There are a number of crimes that\u00a0involve\u00a0all the principles of liability; these\u00a0are called\u00a0“crimes of criminal conduct”. Homicide, for example, is a\u00a0crime\u00a0because all one\u00a0is needed\u00a0to\u00a0prove\u00a0actus reus, mens rea, causation\u00a0harm\u00a0and concurrence.\u00a0The requirement that the prosecutor must provide evidence in each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt,\u00a0is referred\u00a0to “corpus delicti rule”.\u00a0Burglary, for example, is a\u00a0crime\u00a0because all\u00a0 you\u00a0need to do is\u00a0prove\u00a0beyond a reasonable doubt, this\u00a0is referred\u00a0to as an actus reus concurring with a mens rea. There are crimes that\u00a0involve\u00a0all the principles of criminal liability, which\u00a0are referred\u00a0to as true crimes. .Given this\u00a0scenario, criminal law\u00a0has been broken. First, Marley and his\u00a0friend\u00a0Bob have\u00a0intention\u00a0of intruding and stealing from Scrooge.\u00a0It states under the theft act state a person is guilty of theft of burglary if he or she enters a building or part of a building as\u00a0a\u00a0trespasser\u00a0and intents\u00a0to commit the\u00a0offence\u00a0of burglary.\u00a0Though Marley is dead, they both broke the law.We could also say they had equipped themselves for stealing.\u00a0The theft\u00a0act,\u00a0states that a person is guilty if he has with him any items for use in the course of the\u00a0incident\u00a0or which the items are in\u00a0connection\u00a0with any burglary.\u00a0Given\u00a0our\u00a0case, an\u00a0offence\u00a0was committed\u00a0by them.Marley gets to died before all\u00a0is heard\u00a0by the police, already a blame game\u00a0is created\u00a0by Bob that he was drunk before accompanying Marley to Scrooge house.\u00a0The question is why he fled from the\u00a0incident\u00a0when he got struck on the arm by Scrooge?\u00a0It is\u00a0important\u00a0to\u00a0understand\u00a0if Bob is\u00a0guilty. When Bob was in the incident, he was holding items which he\u00a0later\u00a0dropped, if\u00a0truly\u00a0he\u00a0did not\u00a0know what was happening and was drunk then why did he fled away leaning his\u00a0friend\u00a0behind. Bob broke the law because right\u00a0back\u00a0his mind he knew what he was doing.Scrooge is under pressure, he has actually caused one\u2019s life.\u00a0Under the law of homicide, human life is of unique value.\u00a0While\u00a0danger\u00a0to life is an\u00a0element\u00a0of most crimes, the law focuses on it directly, by declaring criminal in a range of\u00a0conduct\u00a0that actually causes death.\u00a0Since\u00a0life\u00a0is valued\u00a0highly, such conduct is\u00a0not allowed\u00a0more\u00a0generally\u00a0than\u00a0conduct\u00a0causing other kinds of harm.\u00a0Given\u00a0our\u00a0case,\u00a0homicide\u00a0has taken place since the act of killing a human being by another human being has occured.Given that\u00a0\u00a0homicide\u00a0is an issue, the law makes no distinctions among humans as victims.\u00a0The\u00a0human\u00a0life\u00a0is always a priority thus protected, and none of the criteria is\u00a0worth by which we may\u00a0classify persons for other purposes is\u00a0material.\u00a0Scrooge has to\u00a0answer\u00a0on that given that he used a sword to\u00a0take\u00a0one\u2019s life and harm another.\u00a0The question behind this is, why the sword?\u00a0Did he\u00a0intent\u00a0to harm? Was Scrooge frightened at the time of\u00a0incident? Had such an incident ever happened before? This\u00a0entire\u00a0question will determine whether he broke the law or not.In homicide, if someone acts with no intent to kill or if he or she has the\u00a0intent\u00a0but the\u00a0death\u00a0occurs, it may\u00a0likely\u00a0not be\u00a0obvious\u00a0whether his or her conduct or other contributing factor for which someone\u00a0else is criminally responsible should be\u00a0regarded as\u00a0the cause\u00a0of death.\u00a0The matter\u00a0is then left\u00a0to the trier of fact, who is to decide on the basis of\u00a0ordinary\u00a0experience and common sense whether to attribute causal\u00a0responsibility.For Scrooge\u00a0case\u00a0this\u00a0homicide\u00a0would\u00a0have been referred\u00a0as Justifiable, though there are no\u00a0fault\u00a0homicides. It involves the death of someone under a circumstance of\u00a0necessity\u00a0or\u00a0duty\u00a0for example\u00a0self defense by scrooge in the time of\u00a0the incident.Scrooge still has to defend himself on his act.\u00a0To convict a defendant of crime, the prosecutor must and always\u00a0provide\u00a0prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\u00a0As part of the process, the defendant\u00a0is given\u00a0an opportunity\u00a0to present a defense. For our\u00a0case, Self-Defense would be. Self-defense is a defense asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, for example, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder or\u00a0battery\u00a0(striking someone).\u00a0The defendant could admit that he did\u00a0in fact\u00a0commit the crime, but claims that it was a result of\u00a0the other person’s\u00a0threatening\u00a0actions.\u00a0Scrooge would do the same, arguing that there was\u00a0a presence\u00a0of a threatening action.\u00a0In most self-defense cases\u00a0the core issues are who is the aggressor, was the defendant’s belief that self-defense as necessary a\u00a0reasonable\u00a0one, and If so, was the\u00a0force\u00a0used by the defendant also\u00a0reasonable?Self-defense\u00a0is always rooted\u00a0in the belief that one should be given\u00a0an opportunity\u00a0to\u00a0protect\u00a0themselves from physical harm. It means that a person does not\u00a0have to wait until he\u00a0is struck\u00a0to\u00a0act\u00a0in self-defense. In law, if a reasonable person in\u00a0same\u00a0circumstances\u00a0would think that he is about to be physically attacked, an individual has the right to strike first and\u00a0prevent\u00a0the attack from the other person. However, any act of self-defense one cannot use more\u00a0force\u00a0than is reasonable, if one used too much\u00a0force\u00a0he may be regarded as guilty of a crime. Scrooge could be referred as\u00a0guilty\u00a0under this state, the fact that he used\u00a0force\u00a0and by so doing it resulted to Marley death.Bob could also defend himself, stating that he was Under the Influence of alcohol. It\u00a0is argued\u00a0that if someone commits\u00a0a crime\u00a0under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and him or her\u00a0mental\u00a0functioning\u00a0was impaired, they cannot be held\u00a0accountable\u00a0for their actions. However, voluntary intake of drugs or alcohol does not\u00a0excuse\u00a0criminal conduct.\u00a0If the defendant knows (or should know) that drugs and alcohol affect one\u2019s\u00a0mental\u00a0functioning, they should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of the voluntary use.Scrooge would also\u00a0refer\u00a0himself under this defense, that at the time of crime he was under the influence of alcohol since he was at home resting or taking a nap.\u00a0Though his\u00a0take\u00a0could have been voluntary, he being at his\u00a0house\u00a0and disturbed could not\u00a0have\u00a0him guilty. Still Scrooge\u00a0is not found\u00a0guilty.In Some states, an exception to this general rule\u00a0is allowed.\u00a0If\u00a0someone\u00a0is accused\u00a0of committing a crime that requires some form of specific intent\u00a0meaning\u00a0that it\u00a0was intended\u00a0with consequences, as well as intending to\u00a0do\u00a0the physical act that leads up to consequences, the accused could also argue that he or she was too drunk to have formed intended to commit the crime.\u00a0This is a partial defense; however, it does not entirely\u00a0excuse\u00a0the defendant for his action.\u00a0For such a situation, the defendant\u00a0will be convicted\u00a0of another crime that doesn\u2019t\u00a0require proving the specific intent.\u00a0For example, someone accused of assault with\u00a0the specific intent\u00a0to kill another but only convicted the\u00a0assault\u00a0with a deadly weapon, will not require specific intent.In law, assault theoretically mean different things, it\u00a0is referred\u00a0as an act which\u00a0possibly\u00a0recklessly or intentionally causes someone to\u00a0apprehend\u00a0immediate\u00a0or\u00a0unlawful\u00a0personal violence.\u00a0Recently there has been\u00a0modern\u00a0trend\u00a0to use the term ‘assault’ in a broad sense to include both\u00a0battery\u00a0and\u00a0assault. Scrooge could be accused in\u00a0term\u00a0of\u00a0assault\u00a0but could\u00a0argue\u00a0on\u00a0\u2018actus\u00a0reus of assault\u2019, that there was a requirement of immediacy in the crime of assault.\u00a0It will mean that Scrooge must have perceived some\u00a0form\u00a0of threat and\u00a0as a result\u00a0there was\u00a0the need\u00a0of action, there and then.\u00a0Most courts have on occasion, given a\u00a0somewhat\u00a0liberal interpretation to the concept of immediacy.Conclusion Given this\u00a0case, Bob is Guilty because he knew\u00a0what he was doing at the\u00a0time of the\u00a0incident.\u00a0He fled away leaving his friend Marley behind\u00a0while\u00a0he\u00a0dropped the items he was holding.For Scrooge, he is not guilty because he acted according to defend himself using the sword and at the time of\u00a0the incident\u00a0he was under threat.<\/p>\n
Literature Referencing<\/p>\n
Books (and chapters within books)<\/p>\n
A book by a single author will be cited like this: MT Molan, Criminal Law:Cases and Materials (3 rd edn Cavendish, London 2005) 29 The author\u2019s initials or first name ( if known ) come before the surname and the title is in italics. The edition, publisher, place of publication, and date, follow in brackets. If the edition of the book you used is later than the first, which is quite likely, you MUST specify this. If you need to give the page numbers for the specific section you consulted, add them last. If the book is a collection of chapters edited by one or more people, use (ed) or (eds) after their name(s). For example: <\/p>\n
M Elliott (ed), Beatson, Matthews and Elliott\u2019s Administrative Law :Text and Materials (OUP, Oxford 2005).<\/p>\n
The above example also shows that well established books continue to be known by their original titles long after their original authors have died and each new editor must be identified.<\/p>\n
For multiple authors, insert \u2018and\u2019 between each name for up to three authors. For more than three authors, give the details of the first author, and add \u2018and others\u2019, e.g. <\/p>\n
Damien Chalmers and others, European Union law : text and materials (CUP, Cambridge 2006 )<\/p>\n
Chapters within Books<\/p>\n
To identify any particular chapter in a book of edited readings, you must use the word in and put the title of the chapter in single inverted commas. For example:<\/p>\n
MA Jones, \u2018Breach of Duty\u2019 in A Grubb (ed), Principles of Medical Law (2 nd edn OUP, Oxford 2004)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CRIMINAL LAW By (Insert both names) (Name of class) (Professor\u2019s name) (Institution) (City, State) (Date) Criminal Liability is actually what<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n