Criticism Of Loss Of Control

In this paper I will be discussing everything you need to know about the death penalty such as its pros and cons. While the innocent can be killed, the death penalty has its pros because it prevents them from killing again if they are released or have escaped from prison, it helps overpopulated prisons, and it can help victims’ families get justice and closure. Not only can the innocent be killed, but in the past the death penalty was very inhumane. To some its feels right but to others they feel like 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Most people think that the defendant deserves the death penalty, but what does the defendants’ family think?

Buzizi [2013]. The objective requirement needed to prove provocation and reduce the conviction to manslaughter was not apparent in the case, as a reasonable or ordinary person would likely have left the area, either by not intervening in the altercation in the first place or by deciding to leave once the victim had dropped his knife. The subjective requirement needed to prove provocation was not met either, as Buzizi’s recollection of the events suggested that he had full awareness of his actions. Also, although he had pent up emotions, when the victim dropped his knife, once again, there was an obvious opportunity for Buzizi to think for a moment and make the decision to get away. This would have mitigated the feelings of fear Buzizi stated he had felt, and it would not have come at the cost of a life. However, Buzizi instead made the conscious decision to stab the victim multiple times, ending his life. Since the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was actually accepted, this spells out a need for the Criminal Code to clarify some of the ambiguities with respect to provocation. For instance, in Section 232 (2) where it states that an ordinary person is deprived of self-control, it may be wise to specify the level of proportionality required between the lack of self-control and the degree of the wrongfulness of the provoking act. If the criminal law allows the threat of an exacto knife to justify stabbing the holder of that exacto knife multiple times when their guard is down, then soon the criminal law may allow future actions that are even more disproportionate to the circumstances to go relatively

Defences for Murder There are only three partial defences for murder; suicide pact, provocation-the loss of self control and reaction must be instantaneous and diminished responsibility. Amongst the three mentioned two are most frequently used, these are provocation and diminished responsibility, and only one full defence, self defence. These defences are used to reduce the sentence charge by the defendant to manslaughter from murder. In the following text I will be examining how men use provocation and diminished responsibility to walk free from murder.

Despite recent reforms on the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter; including the special defence of diminished responsibility and loss of control, there are still inconsistencies present making the law unsatisfactory. This area of the law is in ‘dire need of reform’; as pointed out by the Law Commission in their 2006 report; Murder, Manslaughter and infanticide. The report stated how ‘The Law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure built upon shaky foundations.’

This is a fair criticism of the argument and involves many variables that cannot all be addressed. Perhaps the life sentence provides you with nothing but a constant reminder of the ill fate that involved the loss of your mother and brother. That is surely an unsatisfying way of resolving the murders of two people by someone who had no choice in doing so. Then, it may be argued that freedom from responsibility would be the best outcome for you in the example provided. For this paper’s purpose, that is as far as I can go on the argument against your life sentence. Now, we must once again entertain the idea of your discovering the cause of your actions, the color

Answer: I think the authors point of view is one sided a little because he thinks everyone thinks their life out completely and has common sense. A lot of these crimes could have been prevented but you also have to take into account that persons circumstances. The crimes discussed in this chapter showcases that it can be a good explanation and not every murderer is a

An objective fault element “requires only that a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have had the required guilty knowledge or would have acted differently (Week 6)”. In the Buzizi case, in order to prove the defense of provocation and change the conviction to manslaughter, as suggested by Section 232 (2) of the Criminal Code, the objective fault element required to prove second-degree murder must not be present. This is due to the fact that the provision makes a reference to the accused being deprived of self-control in a fashion that reflects a reasonable or ordinary person. In order to satisfy the objective standard for manslaughter, it is also important that the act that provokes the accused is sudden, unjust, and unforeseeable [Lexisnexis]. In Buzizi’s case, the objective fault element for second-degree murder remains present, and the conditions to satisfy the objective standard for manslaughter are not met. As suggested by the facts of the case, there was a significant temporal distance between the initial altercation between the victim and Buzizi’s cousin and the second altercation that resulted in the victim’s death. Since the accused had watched the initial assault on his cousin from far away, he had the option to not intervene. The accused suggested in trial that he made the decision to get

Excusable Homicide Society today is faced with many challenges during the course of their lifetime. At times situation will arise and the person facing the dilemma must make a split second decision as to which path they will choose to go. Humans seem to have the built in mechanism for which they will “fight or flight” when dealt with a hand in which they have never faced before. Working

In this circumstance the decision of the death penalty was not executed in similar means, since the conflict was deliberated as a violation of the 8th amendment. The examination of cruel and unusual punishment (Boss, 2012), remained significant due to difficulty of the court in deciding the characteristics of the amendment to validate punishments of elaborated offenses; numerous individuals in the U.S. still support the death penalty irrespectively of how it is banned in other countries. The attitude of this argument changes vividly after the opening argument, as genuine to dogmatic. The situation starts via vindicating the resources of capital punishment moreover, the lawbreaker is mindful of the magnitude and stipulation of murder, hence,

Some people may say that having control over someone or something can bring satisfaction and a sense of power. In the an article called “Gunman Kills Himself After Hostage Drama (584)” written by Charles P. Wallace and Tim Waters loss of control and the feeling of being helplessness makes Robert B. Rose commit a last act of asserting control over himself. In another article written by Martin E.P. Seligman called “On Learned Helplessness (585)” the feeling of loosing control of oneself is something that can cause someone to do things that they thought they would never do. What is hard to understand is that some of the things the someone may commit may implicate the lives of others in a negative way and the ending result could be death.

The individual circumstances related to Dragan Obrenovic are mainly his aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In this trial his mitigating circumstances outweigh his aggravating circumstances. His 3 main aggravating circumstances were A. The position of leadership of Dragan Obrenovic, B. The role of Obrenovic as deputy commander, and C. The vulnerability of the victims and depravity of the crimes. His main mitigating circumstances were A. Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Responsibility, B. Remorse, C. Cooperation with the Porsecution, D. Character of the Accused , E. No opportunity of volunteer surrender, and F. Personal Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances are reasons why someone should be given a harsher penalty for a crime, in this situation mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances and judges took this into consideration when giving him his 17 year sentence. For part A of aggravating circumstances, the Prosecution

There have been so many amazing things that I have experienced in my life already. I look forward to each new experience I may have an opportunity to have. Each day is a victory, a challenge, and a success story. Every day is a gift and you should take full advantage of everyday you are given. Unfortunately, we all miss some of the best moments in life by being so concerned about control life.

The result of research showed that the judge to commit the law towards the Premeditated murder is lack of effective. Judge consideration to verdict the punishment must be reflect in the sense of justice in this case for victims family although for the suspect. The application of criminal law for the Premeditated murder is not considered for using clause and sentenced of criminal law.

The Court of Appeal can sometimes pay lip-service to s 8 and quash convictions because the jury were not clearly directed that the test of intention is subjective9. Nevertheless, originally an objective test was used to decide oblique intention in DPP v Smith10 which widened the MR of murder. The House of Lords held that the accused was guilty of murder for two reasons. Firstly, because death or grievous bodily harm was foreseen as a likely result of the accused’s unlawful act. Secondly, the accused was deemed to have foreseen the risk which a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have foreseen. The second ground for the House of Lords’ decision had been widely criticised as it introduced an objective element in the meaning of intention.11TheVickers12 has modified by DPP v Smith that the mental element in murder requires proof of an intention to kill or cause GBH, where the probability of foreseeing can be defined as exceeding a certain degree, is equivalent or alternative to the necessary intention. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be convicted of murder if it is established that he had intended to kill or create grievous bodily harm. In considering the construction of s1(1) [Homicide Act 1957], it can be said that an intention to cause GBH at least evidenced a willingness to

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.