Willow And Xander Case Study

In order to state a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must allege “intentional or reckless” conduct. Lasater, 194 Md. App. at 448. “To meet the ‘intentional or reckless’ criterion of the first element, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant either desired to inflict severe emotional distress, knew that such distress was certain or substantially certain to result from his conduct, or acted recklessly in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow. Floor, 78 Md. App. at 175 (emphases in original); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (““Intentional” when used in this context means “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (“If he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct

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 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.

The prosecution’s case relies on proving that Blyton was not acting in self-defence and that he made a conscious decision to kill his father. This argument is supported partially by the fact that when Blyton was rushed, Livingstone no longer had possession of the knife that made his initial assault threatening. Furthermore, Blyton gave 6 other versions of the event to various people which do not mention that he was acting in

Darrow argued that Leopold’s obsession with crime and Loebs fascination with Nitezhce was a form of rebellion against the well-meaning, but strict and controlling, governess who raised him. They can not be hold morally responsible for the murder of Bobby Franks because each “child takes one shape or another shape depending not upon the boy himself, but on what surrounds him.”. However, this is a weak view to take as it suggests that people do not need to feel guilty for their actions; they have no moral responsibility, as their actions are already determined. If people were not morally responsible for their evil actions, then the world by a chaotic place, people could commit evil crimes and blame it upon their surroundings. It is therefore clear that hard determinism is a ridiculous view to take when assessing this hypothesis, as it would lead to utter anarchy and the notion of sin would be undermined.

In the book of “Just Mercy”, a case involving a 14 year old girl who was mentally ill, homeless, and had suffered from abuse, was convicted of second degree murder after causing a fire to burn down a house in which two individuals were killed. Trina was later tried as an adult and sentenced to life imprisonment. While in prison Trina was raped by a male prison guard and impregnated. Many factors within this case are conspicuously able to identify the corruption within the criminal justice system. Trina was tried as an adult in her case which was found to be unfair. Also, due to her mental illness, Trina’s brain is not able to properly function as well as others. This causes a huge gap in her case because this factor was not taken into account while her case was being held. As a mentally ill individual , Trina is not able to form an intent to kill. Her mental illness prevents her from being able to

Question 4 - Assess the use of the defence of provocation in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. (10 marks)

The intent is acting with a purpose or having knowledge that the act in question can cause injury or harm to another person. Acting requires a person to perform an act that results in harm or injury to another. Actual Cause requires

There is the issue that causation does not have a moral base meaning blame plays a greater part than actual proof which makes it hard to amend the law for example when using the

1. The actus reus in this crime is Tommy aiming the rifle towards Edward. Rather than telling Edward to cook dinner, he jokingly threatens him with a rifle for dinner. Tommy acted negligently because a reasonable person would be aware that pointing a gun at anyone is dangerous and could accidentally kill someone. Whether he acknowledged that the rifle was loaded or not, having a gun pointed at someone causes risk and fear to both individuals.

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.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.

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 of the United Kingdom’s decision in Mohamud represents a subtle yet fundamental change to the area of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability derives from a combination of legal principles and judicial discretion. It is not the result of a clearly developed, logical legal principle . The moving landscape of vicarious liability, as evidenced in Mohamud, can be attributed largely to the courts desire to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. This has occurred by liberal application of existing legal principles and expansive use of judicial discretion.