Evaluation of Murder
A good law should be clear so both the judge and jury can apply it in
a reasonable way, this makes it easier for the jury to follow and
provides a consistent outcome. It should be consistent, if not one
person could do exactly the same crime as another and they could have
completely different sentences. Consistency makes the law fair which
is another important element of a good law. The law should reflect the
degree of fault and punish the defendant in a suitable way; this also
provides justice for the family within the law. It should also provide
a defence this also makes the law fair and also provides justice for
the defendant as it will reflect the degree of fault. A good law could
also be flexible.
The actus Reus of murder involves the time limit. The law reform act
abolished the original year and a day rule and introduced a new time
limit. This meant the "death must occur within three years, after that
the attorney general's permission to prosecute must be obtained." This
introduction has meant it provides justice for the victim and reflects
the defendant's degree of fault. The three year rule also deals with
causation as the attorney general's permission is needed.
As for causation it could be said that it is too easy to pass the "but
for" test and substantial cause tests as it is very easy to find a
causal link between the defendant's actions and the outcome. The
operating cause test tries to provide justice as unforeseeable acts
break the chain of causation. There is controversy over medical cases.
For example blaue, you could argue that the defendant shouldn't put
the victim in that position, but ...
... middle of paper ...
...harged with the
murder of the baby. This brought about the question of whether a
foetus is a human being. One possible reform would be to include a
foetus as a human being but have separate legislation setting out
rules over abortion.
Altogether I think the law on murder is satisfactory. However I think
certain proposals for reform should be taken into consideration to
make the law better. I think English law should follow the example of
American law on different degree's of murder as personally I believe
it is morally wrong and unfair to treat certain cases of murder like
that of R v Cox in the same light as R v Brady and Hindley (1966) for
example, who tortured and murdered several children for no apparent
reason. I also think the wording of the mens rea should be changed to
make it clearer and more consistent.
Fisch, Harmanpreet Kaur drank alcohol and did cocaine. She then went to Mrs. Fisch’s address,
Murder at the Margin is a murder mystery involving various economic concepts. The story takes place in Cinnamon Bay Plantation on the Virgin Island of St. John. It is about Professor Henry Spearman, an economist from Harvard. Spearman organizes an investigation of his own using economic laws to solve the case.
The story of “Killings” by Andre Dubus looked into the themes of crime, revenge and morality. The crime committed in the story depicted the father’s love for his son and the desire to avenge his son’s death. However, his own crime led to his own destruction as he was faced with questions of morality. The character found himself in a difficult position after taking his revenge. He failed to anticipate the guilt associated with the crime he committed. Feelings of anger and righteousness are illustrated by the character throughout the story.
The Murderers Are Among Us, directed by Wolfe Gang Staudte, is the first postwar film. The film takes place in Berlin right after the war. Susan Wallner, a young women who has returned from a concentration camp, goes to her old apartment to find Hans Mertens living there. Hans took up there after returning home from war and finding out his house was destroyed. Hans would not leave, even after Susan returned home. Later on in the film we find out Hans was a former surgeon but can no longer deal with human suffering because of his traumatic experience in war. We find out about this traumatic experience when Ferdinand Bruckner comes into the film. Bruckner, Hans’ former captain, was responsible for killing hundreds
In "The Most Dangerous Game" and "Bargain" murder happens. Certainly, murder is one of the most vile, inhuman crimes a person can commit. Many people commit it willfully and wantonly, but few get away with it without being suspected. General Zaroff got away with murder quite frequently, and Mr. Baumer also did. They were both good at it. Zaroff and Mr. Baumer were the most evil people in "The Most Dangerous Game" and "Bargain" because they were both very sneaky and smart about murdering, they both stacked the deck against their victims, and they were both murderers.
The article “The Murder They Heard” written by Stanley Milgram and Paul Hollander is a response to the article that Martin Gansberg “38 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police”. Milgram and Hollander explain why they do not agree that the neighbors of Catherine Genovese should have called the police. Milgram and Hollander give reasons why they disagree with Gansberg, and why I should agree with what they are saying. After reading both articles, I felt very conflicted with who I agree with, but after much deliberation, I realized that I agree more with Milgram and Hollander. The neighbors should not be blamed for Genovese’s death. We should try to understand why they did not call the police. There are a few things you need to take into consideration,
The sentencing of underage criminals has remained a logistical and moral issue in the world for a very long time. The issue is brought to our perspective in the documentary Making a Murderer and the audio podcast Serial. When trying to overcome this issue, we ask ourselves, “When should juveniles receive life sentences?” or “Should young inmates be housed with adults?” or “Was the Supreme Court right to make it illegal to sentence a minor to death?”. There are multiple answers to these questions, and it’s necessary to either take a moral or logical approach to the problem.
...vidence of showing mens rea. The terms mens rea means guilty act, and if there is no proof to show that mens rea is displayed in this case, then the arrest should not continue. Neither of the men committed a guilty act of murder. Vaillancourt was not found guilty and the court decided that the accused was not liable for the death of the victim. Only conviction that should have been made was break and enter for both men. No murder was intended.
On December 18th 2015 Netflix aired with great popularity a 10 part documentary series called “making a Murderer” The documentary, written by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demo, present the case of Steven Avery; a convicted murderer exonerated on DNA evidence after serving 18 years for the assault and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen. The writers present the series in a way that suggest that Avery was framed by the Manitowoc Country police department. and present that the police planted evidence to frame Steven Avery because he had been exonerated from the previous crime. The ethical problem with this as is presented by Kathryn Schulz in The New Yorker, is that the documentary argues their case so passionately that they leave out important
of law has proved to be confusing to both juries and judges due to the
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
One such case is R v Rimmington (2006) where Lord Bingham said that conduct forbidden by law should be clearly indicated so that a person is capable of knowing that it is wrong before he does it and that nobody should be punished for doing something which was not a criminal offence when it was done. Moreover Lord Bingham and Lord Walker in the Privy Council decision in Sharma v Brown-Antoine (2007) said that the rule of law requires that, subject to any legal immunity or exemption, the law should be even-handed and apply to all
Homicide is defined as “the killing of one human by another.”(Legal-dictionary, 2008) There are 3 categories of homicide which include first and second degree Murder, Manslaughter and Justifiable Homicide. First degree murder is when a person plans to and follows through with the killing of another person where the intent was death such as a boyfriend finding out his girlfriend is pregnant but because he does not want the baby he pushes the girlfriend down the stairs and kills them both he could then be charged with two counts of first degree murder. Second degree murder is almost like first degree murder in the sense that a person killed another person but they did not plan to kill them for example if a person were driving while drunk and caused an accident that killed another person she could be charged with second degree murder because she did not plan to crash and kill the other person but her actions of drinking caused the accident and the death of that person
An absurd and chilling documentary directed by Joshua Oppenheimer about how the perpetrators of one atrocious political purge are still enjoying impunity along with power in public even after more than 50 years. With an unorthodox filmmaking process at its center what is shown through that process is as hilariously terrible as the corrupt social environment surrounding it. Although watching this film it may seem too absurd to be reality it did in fact occur. In the opening scenes we are given a brief history lesson in 1965 the Indonesian government was overthrown by the military. Anyone opposed to the military dictatorship could be accused of being a communist. We learn in less than a year more than one million “communists” were killed with
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.