For an offence to occur, three elements need to be present. This includes a defendant’s guilty conduct, known as actus rea, a defendant’s state of mind being guilty and no valid defence. In this case scenario, the potential issue is whether Baldwin may face liability for the death of Hutchins as a result of the shooting during the filming of Rust. As mentioned before, we must analyse the elements of an offence in order to conclude this issue. It could be argued that Baldwin's actions had indirect intent and were not reckless. The case of Cunningham set out that to respond to recklessness, the defendant must be fully aware of the risk that will occur if they follow the action and still decide to in consciousness to follow it. However, in the …show more content…
It would be reasonable to conclude that Baldwin is not legally responsible for the death of Hutchin, as there was no intent on his behalf for the death to happen. Although the actus reus was met to be an offence, the two elements (actus reus and mens rea) must be met if this is not the case. b) To determine the legal responsibility of the cause of death, causation should be approached, and it includes a direct link between the death and Baldwin's action. The case of R v Smith, which requires the defendant's act to be a considerable cause of the outcome, is relevant here as Baldwin's action was the reason for Hutchin’s passing and thus the doctrine of causation is established. However, the case of Cunningham established that recklessness is all that is needed for mens rea in certain circumstances. The act of pulling the trigger in this instance was not reckless as D did not foresee the outcome of that action. However, the fault revolves around the people in charge who were supposed to complete thorough checks on the gun before the object was used on set for safety. However, others may argue that Baldwin may be at fault due to gross negligence, as Baldwin failed to give the standard of care that is
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
Code Ann., Crim. sec. 2-201 (a) (1) 2014. Lt. Manion’s actions fall into this description based on the series of events that led up to the murder of Mr. Quill. Lt. Manion willfully admits that he shot Mr. Quill, but defends that he was warranted in doing so because he suffered from an “irresistible impulse.” From Lt. Manion’s testimony, he clearly understands the criminality of his actions, however; he argues that his actions were out of his control because they resulted from him seeing the trauma his wife suffered. In his testimony, he describes to the court how he purposefully went into his trailer to obtain the gun that was used to kill Mr. Quill before traveling to the tavern to confront the victim, which shows premeditation and intent to commit murder. The defense would have a difficult time convincing the jury that Lt. Manion was incapable of controlling his actions since his actions were thought out and deliberate, which was displayed in his testimony when asked by his defense attorney why he brought the gun, he said “I knew I had to go to Quill’s bar and I thought I might need it” (Anatomy of a Murder
When students across the United States study the 1940’s, one main topic is focused on, World War II. Students learn that during the forties, Europe was war torn and America sent its troops overseas to fight in some of the most infamous battles of the twentieth century. But what is left out of history lessons is what was going on American soil when the battles across the ocean were raging on. This decade was a racially charged time in American history, even though this fact is over shadowed by the Nazis of Germany in history books. Several race riots occurred in the forties. Even though they were equal in violence to the riots of the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties, many Americans forget the riots of the forties. The biggest and bloodiest race riot of the 1940’s took place in Detroit, Michigan, in June of 1943. Several publications covered the riots, and none of the printed facts ever matched up until years later. This rioting resulted from a rumor that flowed through city streets. The rumor and the riot that it caused destroyed an entire city and many human lives. James Baldwin emphasizes the historical significance of rumors and uses this theme in his essay, “Notes of a Native Son,” to highlight the struggle toward equality.
On the hot day of August 2, 1943, a racial storm brewed within Harlem, New York. With the Detroit riots in just weeks past, the white and black people of Harlem felt a mutual, chaotic animosity towards each other. As a result, the Harlem race riots of 1943 occurred just before James Baldwin’s 19th birthday, which was also the day of his father’s death. Leaving a devastating gash in the hearts of Harlem natives and the American people, this event not only touched the lives of Harlem’s residents, but also exhibited a picture to the world regarding American race relations.
The rage of the disesteemed is personally fruitless, but it is also absolutely inevitable; this rage, so generally discounted, so little understood even among the people whose daily bread it is, is one of the things that makes history.
Born in Harlem in 1924, James Baldwin grew to be a complex man with many aspects. As an avid reader as a child, Baldwin soon developed the skills to become one of the most talented and strong writers of his time. His first novel was written in 1953 and was called “Go Tell it On the Mountain” and received critical acclaim. More great work from this novelist, essayist, and playwright were to come, one of which was “Notes of a Native Son,” which was first published in Harper’s Magazine in 1955 and was also first known as “Me and My House.” In “Notes of a Native Son,” Baldwin exercises his many talents as an essayist in how he manages to weave narratives and arguments throughout the essay. He is also able to use many of his experiences to prove his points. Baldwin effectively interlaces his narratives, arguments, and experiences so as to reach his central idea and to advocate the overall moral that he has learned to his audience. This is what makes Baldwin so unique in his work: his ability to successfully moralize all people he comes in contact with.
Second, is the matter of proximity. This handles the question as to when an act goes from merely being thought of to actually happening. Finally, if one’s conduct completely carried out wouldn’t be a crime what circumstances would? In this case Bob definitely had the intension to kill Leroy, and he took the shot
“And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie’s head. The hand shook violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger.” (Steinbeck 106). In John Steinbeck’s novel Of Mice and Men, Lennie Small is a middle-aged character with a severe mental disability. He always feels as if he has to be petting something soft, or that satisfies his touch. One of these things he pets is a woman’s hair, and as he started to pet it more, she started getting angry and was shaking, as she thought he was ruining it. As he got nervous, because he had never seen a woman up close before, and he snapped her neck and killed her, accidentally. Lennie then ran away from the ranch where he was working and George Milton, his lifelong friend and travel buddy, found him, and decided to shoot and murder him thinking it would be the best way to handle the situation. It was considered a mercy killing in his eyes, when it was really a murder. Mercy killings are told to be assisted suicide, where one chooses to end their
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
“Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder.”
Mens rea refers to the mental element involved in committing a crime and is concerned with the guilty mind of the defendant. Both intent and recklessness are categories of mens rea that are different and have different levels of culpability. Intention in criminal law is when an individual consciously decides to behave in a particular manner to achieve a certain desired result and in doing so commits a crime. It is the highest form of mens rea as someone who intentionally sets out to commit a criminal offence is typically more culpable then an individual who has behaved in a reckless manner, which has consequently resulted in a crime. Intention can be further split into two categories: direct intention and oblique intention.
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
In the case of R v Maloney (1985), the defendant and the Victim (stepfather of the defendant), were drunk when they decided to have a contest of who can load and fire a gun more quickly. The defendant shot the victim without aiming as the victim taunted the defendant to fire the gun. Lord Bridge held ‘Foresight of consequences as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder... belongs, not to the substantive law but the law of evidence’ (Molan, 2001: 95), oblique intent here is held ...
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.
• That the defendant’s mental condition, at the time of killing rendered the perpetrator to decide any right or wrong and what he/she was doing was wrong. UNINTENTIONAL MURDER:- In many countries for a killing to get considered as murder, there must be some element of intent. But in this condition also a defendant may argue that he/she took precautions not to kill, that at that time death was unavoidable .As a general rule it is considered that manslaughter constitutes reckless killing of any being but manslaughter also includes criminally negligent homicide.