Recklessness And Its Effects On Reckless Act

This legislation, involved the unacceptable risk test after the amendment of the 1978 Bail Act. This amendment was a result of the Law reform Commissions which reviewed the statistics of individuals on bail.The unacceptable risk test caused an uproar in society, through the medias engagement in cases such as the R V Fesus case, in which an alleged murderer was granted bail. This legislation was ineffective in meeting society’s needs at the time, however effective in relation to accessibility, being accessible for

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

Risk is defined by the probability of injury, harm, loss or danger. We all take risks every day, and don’t even think about implications.

The case was brought forward to the NSW Supreme Court in 2001 whereby Judge Hulme ordered both Respondents as negligent. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal whereby the judgement was granted in favour of the Respondents. This case affirms the previous decision.

Furthermore, throughout sentencing and punishment various legal and non-legal measures have been implemented to ensure that sentences for those convicted are appropriate and effective to enable rehabilitation and reintegration into society and provide the community with a sense of justice and security. The provision of statutory and judicial guidelines means that limits are placed on a judge’s discretion when sentencing, thus ensuring sentencing consistency. These guidelines were established in relation to the case R v. Jurisic (1998). The defendant Jurisic, pleaded guilty to three charges of dangerous driving occasioning in grievous bodily harm. He was found under the influence of cocaine on one of these charges. He was sentences to 18 months home detention, lost his driver’s licence for one year and was put on a good behaviour bond for two years. This was through to be lenient and was appealed by the DPP. The appeal was upheld and the sentence was replaced by two years imprisonment and two years disqualification of his driver’s

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton or in reckless disregard to safety.

In the instance of drunk driving, the actions of the drunk driver are related to the safety of the drivers within their proximity and therefore affects not only the driver but others as well. Our previous moral experiences allow us to determine what the intentions of the drunk driver might be. Some drivers may choose to drive under the influence of alcohol because they have had an emergency that requires them to be at a certain place and they do not have the means to reach to their destination except for driving themselves. In this case, the context becomes complicated and intricate. However, if the driver is risking his own and other drivers’ safety, it becomes clear that their intentions are based on nonchalance and disregard for others.

This reckless driving--113 m.p.h--was a surprise and frustration for the author because his son was reasonable, measured, and mostly repentant after the incident; his son’s only qualm was that he shouldn’t have been cited for reckless driving because he was incredibly focused and thoughtful about where and when he was speeding. This odd paradox was frustrating to the author because he simply couldn’t understand his son’s thinking.

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton or in reckless disregard to safety.

Prompt 1) Discuss and characterize the differences between committing a crime purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (be sure to use examples and to distinguish clearly, in particular, between acting knowingly and acting recklessly). Given this analysis, what might explain why we blame a purposeful crime more than a reckless one?

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

There had been a rule in Australian legal history which demanded a lower standard of care for inexperienced drivers after the case Cook vs. Cook. However, this anomaly of variable standard of care to reflect the relationship between inexperience drivers, driving in supervision of experienced drivers was overruled by Australian High Court after the case of Imbree vs. McNeilly.

In the United States, Reckless driving is the number one cause of teenage death in the nation. Reckless driving can be classified as anything from speeding and swerving, to purposely trying to run someone over, or hurt them while driving. In America, there are countless organizations calling to help end the high death rate in teenagers that reckless driving takes. People such as Parents, Drivers Education Instructors and even state legislators have realized the problem and are seeking reform. In 2011 alone 2,650 teens between the ages of 16-19 were killed due to reckless driving. (CDC) Reckless driving is a death that is very preventable, with proper education and warning. As well as problem that is not taken seriously by the juvenile’s committing the act. Most juveniles don’t worry what so ever about dying in a car crash because they think that it won’t happen to them. Under Reckless Driving, in Green Bay, speeding, not paying attention and lack of caring are three of the biggest issues with teen drivers and juveniles.

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime proposes that low self-control is the cause of crime. Self-control is defined as a person’s ability to control their emotions, behaviors and desires in the face of external demands. Hirschi argued that everyone is born without self-control but it is gained through familial interactions. Parents who supervise their children, recognize deviance and punish deviant acts build self-control in their children. Therefore, low self-control is the product of unsuccessful parenting, such as failing to recognize and correct children’s wrong behavior. Children with low levels of self-control end up being more prone to crime, and their criminal tendencies continue into adulthood. If a child is never told