Introduction In this problem question, I will consider David’s criminal liability for murder. I will also consider whether Dr Hapless had committed the actus reus of murder. David In order for David to be criminally liable for murder, it must be shown that he had committed both the actus reus and the mens rea for murder. The first element to look at is the actus reus of murder. The actus reus, literally ‘wrongful act’, of murder is the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen’s peace. There are four requirements that must be fulfilled in order to consider David’s actions the actus reus of murder. Firstly, the defendant must have killed unlawfully; he must not be able to rely on the defense of self-defense[1]; secondly, it must be shown that the defendant caused the death of the victim, or at least accelerated the victim’s death by more than a negligible amount; thirdly, the victim must be alive, which excludes fetuses and people that are already dead; fourthly, the killing was not of enemy aliens during war and under battle conditions. David commits two actions towards Victor that could potentially be considered the actus reus of murder. Firstly, he ‘charges head first at Victor’, …show more content…
The test for factual (‘but for’) causation requires a jury to consider whether, but for the defendant’s unlawful actions, the harm would have occurred at the same time and in the same way that it did[7]. The requirement for legal causation is that the act was an operating and substantial cause of the result. It is important to note that there may be several different operating and substantial causes of the result, so more than one person can be responsible for the result[8]. Legal causation must be established in order to fulfill one of the requirements of the actus reus of murder. Beyond this, the defendant’s actions would also have to be unlawful, directed towards a living person, and occur in the Queen’s
In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.
Mr. Raleigh is not guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the instance of Roanoke. Mr. Raleigh set sail with two things in mind to found a colony and to bring goods back for England. Roanoke (a colony of England) my client Mr. Raleigh had founded and was in charge of governing. Mr. Raleigh was soon found unsuccessful as he nor anyone in Roanoke could effectively survive in this environment. Mr. Raleigh simply had an unprosperous failing colony. Now, Mr. Raleigh did not leave his colony until after numerous attempts failed. After these failures is when Mr. Raleigh left to fulfill his other task of delivering goods.
In determining if there were reasonable grounds for defence, the jury may have regard to the deceased’s general reputation for violence. In Blyton’s case, his father was a ‘bad alcoholic with a temper’ and had a history of domestic abuse. Blyton’s defence argued that this history contributed to Blyton’s heightened awareness of danger and lead to an instinctive reaction by Blyton to stab his father when rushed.
For Helen to satisfy the AR of murder (the unlawful killing) she must be the factual and legal cause of the death. We use the but for test, which shows if the consequence would or wouldn’t of happened ‘but for’ the Ds actions. As in the case of R v White, ‘but for’ him poisoning his mothers drink, she would of died anyway as she died of a heart attack, so he was not guilty of murder. ‘But for’ Helen throwing the firework in the room, Ian would not have died so she was the factual cause of death. Also, the legal causation is necessary, which is where the D must be the ‘operating and
The major theme of Andre Dubus’ Killing,s is how far someone would go for the person they love. It is important to note the title of the story is killings and not killers, for the reasoning that the story does not just focus on two deaths or two murderers but rather the death of marriage, friendship, youth, and overall, trust.
The accused, Hugo McHale, is guilty of the wilful and premeditated murder of Peter Wilson. Through the analysis of McHale’s motive, means and opportunity, it will become clear that not only did McHale kill someone, but he had also intentionally set out to do so. Throughout the course of this arduous trial you have endured a relentless argument in defence of Hugo McHale, son of the late business magnate Henry McHale and accused murderer of former Altus Properties Chief of Staff, Peter Wilson. The defence have sculpted the seemingly perfect image of an emotionally vulnerable young man with diminished capacity, plagued by the unexpected death of his father. But what the defence
Plot is defined as, "the authors arrangement of incidents in a story it is the organizing principle that controls the controls the order of events (Meyer,64)." The element of plot is heavily relied on in the short story, "The Killings" by Andre Dubus. The plot which is completely made inside the imagination of an author (Meyer,64), gives the audience important insight to people, places, and events in the story (Meyer,64) . "The Killings" provides a somewhat conventional plot pattern, where the character is confronted with a problem and is then led into a climax, which late leads to the resolution of the story (Meyer,65). The conventional plot is easy to follow and serves as a basis for movies and other
Even though the law states that people who are involved in a murder are guilty equally, that is not always the case. In Agatha Christie's novel " And Then There Were None," Justice Wargrave, the orchestrator of what happened on the island, views that there exist different degrees of responsibility among the guests due to their past actions. This perspective, while not entirely aligned with the law, adds an interesting moral dimension to those who are guilty of murder. Examining characters like Anthony Marston and Philip Lombard can provide insight into the nuanced nature of responsibility and guilt.
The ultimate goal here is to challenge the writer find a definitive reason for the downfall of King David who is said to be a man after God’s own heart.
Doug finds himself in a very difficult situation and he cant decide whether to do what he knows is right and not except this foolish trade, or what he wants to do because of his longing for Ralph’s friendship. When Doug begins to him reminisce about these memories we see he’s changed a little bit. He hated himself as if it was his fault back then and now as things have gone on that anger has built up substantially. The difference is now that anger has redirected almost completely at Ralph. He tries to solve this conflict within himself by blaming everything on Ralph. This only makes things worse by reversing that anger to Ralph causing Doug to decide to kill him.
Actus reus is the Latin term for “guilty act” and is defined as the physical element of an offense covering all acts which are not psychological, it is one of two integral elements which are needed to make up an offence the other being mens reus, when these two are paired together without any defence the resulting verdict in a court of law would be guilty.
David, on the other hand, is depicted as a character that is lacking brute strength and weaponry. We are told through the voice of Goliath that he is “only a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance” (1 Samuel 17: 42). It is evident that David is meant to appear as an average kid with no exceedingly superior or spectacular qualities. This simple portrayal of David is significant because it sets in motion the development of realistic empathy from the implied reader towards David. It is important for the implied reader to feel empathetic towards David because even though David kills Goliath in the end, we are meant to view him as a hero, not a murder. Building a connection between the implied reader and David makes this possible.
Application: In this case, the defendant Hal, upon witnessing what he believed was a crime of passion between his wife and Norm, intentionally killed Norm with a gun. Norm is dead as a result of the defendant's actions. The cause is the misapprehension of Hal that a crime of passion was occurring between Wanda and Norm. There is no vicarious liability as the victim is not dead because of the act of a third party so this would be a case of direct homicide.
Jean Albert D. Palomar December 16, 2015 2nd Long Exam History 154 The Act of Killing The premise of the documentary/movie The Act of Killing is simple: to travel to Indonesia to interview some of the participants of the Indonesian government’s act of genocide against the communists and asks them to recreate their experiences of the killings as they wish. Joshua mainly follows Anwar Congo, gang leader turned executioner of the government death squads, along with paramilitary organizations, in North Sumatra after Suharto overthrew Sukarno in 1965 (“The Act of Killing”, 2015). The film then documents Anwar and his fellow executioners’ views on the killings as they go on their filmmaking in the way of gangster and musical films, bordering on surrealistic.