Discuss the extent to which the rules on causation need to be reformed

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

In part 1 of this essay, we will examine the difference between factual causation and legal causation. In part 2, we will examine the judgements in both cases and how the courts applied the material contribution test to both. In part 3, our analytical section, we will examine how both of these cases have blurred the distinction between legal and factual causation and argue that the material contribution test has changed the path of the law for future cases.

Although causal reasoning is used a great deal in public speeches, it is seldom used in other situations.

As mentioned in the prior fallacy, we have a tendency to seek for the cause of events in our lives, yet sometimes we can find a cause and look no further. However, upon serious contemplation we can keep finding causes within causes within causes. Eventually, we may stop searching for causes and think about what caused the universe in the first place. This search has interested many thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas, and still we have vague conceptions of the causi sui—the first cause. The first cause—big bang? The word of a god? However, we cannot claim every argument as committing the Joint Effect fallacy, or soon we would have to qualify everything from a causi sui, through history, and up to the current event. The practical point of this fallacy is to determine if we need to find a cause that creates the asserted cause and effect, or if we can leave well enough alone with the asserted cause and effect. For instance, we can discover that fertilizers are leaking into a lake and deforming fish because we found the same chemicals in fertilizer and fish. Do we need to keep searching for one thing that would cause fertilizers to run-off into lakes AND cause fish to be malformed. We know that people have a fear of freedom which is caused by a desire for that freedom—a.k.a dread. (This comes to us through Kierkegaard and Sartre—basically, you have the freedom to ram your car into a tree, and you fear that freedom; however, you desire to

All crimes consisted of an act is carried out with minds that have planned a guilty thought according to common law. Criminal intent can be the basis of fault and punishment according to intent is a solid promise of the criminal justice according to modern society. Crimes that lack the intent element are less common and are usually graded lower, as either misdemeanors or infractions. Specific intent is the intent with the highest level of culpability for crimes other than murder. Specific intent means that the defendant acts with a more sophisticated level of awareness (Connecticut Jury Instructions No. 2.3-1, 2011).When you hold someone liable for an offense without considering the carelessness of the person then we refers to it strict liability. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. Concurrence in the law is the requirement that a guilty mental state coincide with a guilty

　　The basic assumptions of classical theory of crime causation is the belief that the majority of human beings are are fundamentally rational and that human behavior is the result of free will, meaning that people should be free to choose how they act.

Several questions were raised by the defendant after his trial, which resulted in him filing an appeal of his conviction. Although he admitted to shooting Mr. Villella, Kusmider alleged that there was negligence upon the EMT’s for failing to properly restrain Mr. Villella while being transported to the hospital. During the trial, “a pathologist testified that Mr. Villella’s death was caused by the gunshot wound to his throat, however, the wound could have been survivable (Brody & Acker, 2010, p.116). The issue of proximate causation came about during Kusmider v. State (1984). Judge Johnstone “precluded Kusmider from pursuing the issue of proximate cause before the jury as he ruled that negligent failure to provide approximate medical assistance could not interrupt the proximate causation” (Kusmider v. State, 1984).

Ronnie was the primary victim as he was placed in physical danger whilst in the truck and suffered psychiatric harm as a result. For this sole reason, he is owed a duty of care by his employers. The nature of their relationship means . Failure to install a new safety screen equates to the company's failure to meet the standard of care and they are liable for breach. Ronnie's refusal to wear a helmet is an example of negligent contribution and the two requirements of this principle are satisfied: Ronnie did not take proper care for his own safety and said failure was contributory to the damage he suffered. This is similar to the Capps v Miller case of 1989, where the claimant did not fasten his helmet, subsequently suffering from serious head injuries. Contributory negligence operates as a defence for Bricks R Us, however it is only partial to avoid absolution of liability, since the court's primary aim is to compensate the

While at the hospital, surgery is performed; however, the victim dies on the operating table. It is later discovered the hospital staff gave the patient medication during the procedure in which the victim was allergic to, but was not the cause of death. The cause of death was determined to be the severed artery and loss of blood. Even though the injuries were life threatening and the victim died anyway, the defendant could argue the hospital staff was the proximate cause of the victim’s death by giving them the medication they are allergic to. This should not release the defendant from a murder charge since the victim died from injuries they sustained from the stabbing. With the artery being severed, there was no hope for the victim. The medication given to the patient, while negligent in the dose administration, did not cause the death of the

There is sufficient evidence of the final prong for damages under the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court has held that in order for a plaintiff to show damages, he or she must be susceptible to medical diagnosis and medical evidence that proves the casual link between the observation at the scene and the subsequent emotional reaction. Hegel v. McMahon, 136 Wash. 2d 122 (Wash 1998). The emotional response must also be reasonable under the circumstances. Id. (citing Hunsley, 87 Wash. 2d at 436.)

Every action cannot be a cause and effect if there is a choice to change from one belief to another.

While researchers will never state that one variable caused another variable to occur, as there are so many variables to consider in social science research.

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

Someone is liable for his or her crime even if he or she is not the main contributor to the action. This idea can be critiqued in Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Henry Jekyll, a scientist, divides his personality and believes that he is not responsible for is other half, Hyde. Hyde does some pretty gruesome and despicable things and Jekyll does not feel much remorse for what has happened because he thinks he is not responsible. Unfortunately, Hyde’s evil becomes too powerful and the normal Jekyll cannot win. Although Jekyll has an opposing disposition to Hyde, Hyde is a part of him; therefore Jekyll is responsible.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable