Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. In the case of R v. Buzizi [2013], a man killed another so that he could protect his cousin. On an early morning in Montreal, the accused’s cousin and the victim ensued in a brawl. The initial fight was broken up by a third party, but a few moments later, the accused pushed the victim. Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim was brandishing an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a wound on his neck. For fear that the victim was going to pull out the knife again and attack his cousin or himself, the accused eventually stabbed the victim several times with his own knife. Buzizi was tried and convicted of second degree murder, but this decision was appealed …show more content…
As it will be outlined in this essay, the events that transpired with respect to the threat for his cousin’s safety only serve to establish a motive for Buzizi’s actions. There is insufficient evidence to satisfy the objective and subjective conditions that are required to prove the provocation defense that was argued at trial. Protections afforded under the Charter enforce individual rights at the cost of broader social protection. In this case, the principles of fundamental justice prevented the criminal law from punishing moral guilt and/or from protecting society from a dangerous offender. As some of the Supreme Court of Canada justices opined, there was simply not enough evidence available to mitigate the accused’s moral guilt. Due to the failure to satisfy the subjective and objective elements needed to prove the defense of provocation, the defense in the case of Mr. Buzizi was not valid, and the conviction of second degree murder should have been upheld. But they didn’t …show more content…
This will help to clarify the scope and nature of the crime in question. In criminal law, the actus reus is defined as the “guilty act”, which is the specific act or omission that is codified by the Criminal Code of Canada. The actus reus is easy to identify in the Buzizi case; a man has clearly killed another, so there is no need to question the occurrence of some type of guilty act. The crime was not “planned and deliberate”, so according to Section 231 (1) of the Criminal Code, Buzizi could not have been charged with first-degree murder. Instead, Buzizi was charged with was second-degree murder, as Section 231 (7) states that “all murder that is not first-degree murder is second-degree murder” (CCC). Thus, the occurrence of an actus reus is not the main legal issue of the Buzizi case, as it is clear and unambiguous. The generally accepted principle in criminal law is that “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, meaning that an act is not necessarily a guilty one if the accused does not have the requisite guilty mind (Week 5). Therefore, the issue of this case is ensuring that the Court correctly identifies the particular state or condition of the accused’s mens rea – the intent or “guilty mind” that coincides with the actus
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial. In total this was 444-days after the accused was charged with the impaired driving offence. The final verdict of this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the decision by the Ontario Court of appeal that decided that the trial delay was reasonable due to lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay.
Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with numerous images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by means of force. Thus, indoctrinating a nation of individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems can be resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating the fact that we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for individuals to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an individual strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period of time, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the ...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has long been the legal document that protects Canadian citizens from infringements made by unscrupulous politicians and legislators. However, there are questions explored about the Sections of the Charter and in those of Section 7 in particular. This is because of the protective function of Section 7 and its obligations of the protection of a citizen’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person. There are third parties that could be posing “threats” to Charter interests and therefore the extents of Section 7 in terms of its protective function for individuals’ rights are put into question. Section 7 of the Charter says that “[E]veryone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The meaning of Section 7 is to adhere to each individual’s right to the sanctity of life, their physical liberty in a narrow sense, and the integrity of the person is to be kept secure. However, what would the extent of Section 7 be or moreover, what is the extent of each protected interest? The objective of this paper is to examine the extents of Section 7 of the Charter in which the focus is on the protected interests of life, liberty and security of the person. Each protected interest will be discussed in depth with its relationship to a specific Canadian court case. This will help to determine the extent of Section 7 and therefore help understand how much the Charter protects the freedom of Canadian citizens. For right to life, the First Nation communities in Canada had ‘high risk’ of threats to health in their water systems according to Health Canada. The focus of this topic...
Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse informants, eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, inappropriate, professional and institutional misconduct and scientific limitations that society possessed prior to the technological revolution (Roberts, Grossman, 2012, 253 – 259). The introduction of more advanced DNA analysis has been able to clear names and prevent these incidences from occurring as often. As well as the formation of foundations such as The Association of Defense for the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). Unfortunately, mistakes made in the Canadian Justice System have serious life altering repercussions for everyone that is involved. Both systematic and personal issues arise that require deeper and more intense analysis.
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.
As noted by Allen (2016), measures that are implemented outside the courtrooms, especially in a formal procedure, may lead to the provision of accurate as well as timely considerations for youth crime. As such, Canada is keen in the reinforcement of these regulations, as they determine both short and long-term judicial solutions. Most importantly, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada plays a major role in the implementation of extrajudicial measures as they may affirm to the occurrence of future issues. According to the Government of Canada (2015a), this calls for an attempt to channel out or divert such offenders from the mainstream justice system to a lesser formal way of dealing with the offenses. This paper attempts to investigate the appropriateness of the extrajudicial measures in Canada, and the reason behind why we established these provisions of the YCJA. It also illustrates an example of a Canadian case, which questions the extrajudicial measures. This discussion canvasses the main argument as for or against the extrajudicial measures in Canada through the adoption of recommendations to the Canadian Government about the proper situations in which such processes should be used.
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.
Evidently, Truscott received financial compensation for the ordeal and the suffering it brought to his life by being awarded $6.5 million from the Government. This led to the conclusion that in this case (like many others) the police were solely and unjustly targeting one person. I learned a great deal from this case about Canada’s previous laws. Prior to the case, I had known about the death penalty and that it was legal in Canada, but I did not know when it could be implemented.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Secondly, many believe that capital punishment is right because of the justice given to the victim’s family. These family members feel l...
My view is that killing an innocent threat in defence of oneself or others can be justified, but only when it meets the traditional constraints of being necessary, proportionate and imminent (Townsend 2014:34-35). I take this position because, in agreeance with Hobbes (1651:153-163) and Thompson (1990:135-141), I hold that person’s always retain the liberty right to self defence and that by perpetrating a lethal threat to a person’s life, one forfeits their own right to life. I will defend this claim by explaining the position of Hobbes (1651:153-163) and Thompson (1991:287), showing why traditional constraints are necessary and replying to Otsuka’s (1994:143-151) argument on self defence. Throughout this essay, I shall take any argument that
Necessity as a ground of justification falls under the third element of the crime, Unlawfulness, in Criminal Law. The need to rely on the defence of necessity arises when one must choose between suffering an inevitable evil or danger and breaking the law to avoid such an evil and can be used if the accused, when faced with such a dilemma, chooses to break the law and/or inflict harm on an innocent third party. Necessity, as a defence to murder, violates the Constitutional rights to life and equality, as the right to life is viewed as "antecedent to all other rights in the Constitution." Because, “on a charge of murder, a successful defence of necessity or compulsion would imply that one life (that of the accused) is more valuable than that of the deceased,” it is questioned and critically discussed herein what the legal position regarding this matter should be. English law expects that one must be the hero and lay down his or her life for the life of another, while the South African (SA) law position is that necessity “can constitute a complete defence to a charge of murder.”