- Court approval of common law rule that a person 'may repel force by force' in selfdefense and concluded that when attacked a person 's as entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force' as needed to prevent 'great bodily injury or death's'.…
(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another.…
Intermediate sanctions; offers various different sentencing options to those in need of a more rigorous guidance than that of probation and less restrictive than incarceration and both being primary forms of punishment. The purpose for intermediate sanctions is to reduce the issues concerning overcrowded facilities and probation officers and offices short on staff. The options used for punishing criminals such as, fines, community service, restitution, forfeiture, and pretrial diversion program. The functioning of these sanctions are designed equal to the offenders offense in terms of punishment and treatment as well as other programs recommended to facilitate and improve one’s situation.…
References: Hills, D. (1999). From the Incident Through the System Legally:Knowledge Base of Legal Concepts. Retrieved from http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/silvplat.htm…
The greatest criticism is that because the OAPA was passed in1861 the language is outdated and antiquated, which causes confusion. Words like ‘grievous’ in s20 GBH have been modernised by case law, DPP v Smith stated that grievous should mean ‘really serious harm’. However this still calls into question the severity of ‘really serious’. Another ambiguous term from s20 GBH is ‘wounding’, this was defined in Eisenhower, an example of case law improving the statute. Yet case law can also be misleading as with the word ‘immediate’ when defining Assault, in Smith v CSI Woking Police the assault was ‘sufficiently immediate for the purposes of the offence’. This was then extended in R v Ireland and R v Constanza to include phone calls and letters, so immediacy has become a very broad definition. Despite this there is a clear gap in law if a threat is made for the next day. As well as the unclear meaning of some terms, the definition of some has changed as the English language has developed over time, some words used for Non-Fatal Offences have acquired new meanings or are no longer used in everyday language, a brilliant example of this is ‘assualt’ which now, in everyday language, is used to mean a physical form of attack, which obviously…
Intermediate sanctions tend to overlap the issues that arise when a criminal is released back into society from incarceration. Most often, the offenders, once released, return back to prison within 1-5 years (Fagin, 265). The reasons vary, but most likely it’s because the offender has not had proper preparation on how to ease back into society after being locked up for so much time. Intermediate sanctions are criminal penalties that do not include jail time or probation. Rather, intermediate sanctions fall in the middle of these types of punishments and offer an alternative to them.…
This doctrine originates with Thomas Aquinas, and his treatment of homicidal self-defense, the Summa Theologica. This work states that an action having foreseen harmful effects that are practically inseparable from it’s good effect is justifiable if the following are criteria are met:…
115). When one has committed an act of violence, he or she naturally wants to justify the reasons. For many who commit a criminal act the best defense is justification. According to the author, some examples of justification can be, “self-defense, necessity, and defense of others (Schmalleger, 2010, pg. 116). Self-defense is when “a person has fundamental right to protect his or her self and that to rationally safeguard oneself from an illegal assault is a natural response when faced with a threatening situation” (Schmalleger, 2010, pg. 119). Necessity is a claim made by the defense, in which, “the defendant believed it was necessary to behave illegally to prohibit or deter a greater damage or injury” (Schmalleger, 2010, pg. 116). The defense of others occurs when one person defends another who appears to be in harm’s way (Schmalleger, 2010, pg. 126). However, as the author states, “defense of others is sometimes called “defense of a third person,” is circumscribed in some jurisdictions by the alter ego rule” (Schmalleger, 2010, pg. 126). The defense of others can be tricky because it does not mean one can intervene in an altercation of one’s friend when that friend started the altercation itself. The alter ego rule is accepted in some jurisdictions but not in others. The alter ego rule, as stated by Schmalleger (2010), is that “some jurisdictions will hold that an individual can solely protect a third party under certain conditions and solely to the degree in which the third party could perform for his or her own benefit” (pg. 126). For example, the state of Texas, based on the Model Penal Code ignores acknowledgement this rule by allowing an individual to defend another person if, “he or she has a rational…
- generally involve threats to life or bodily integrity, or a close personal encounter with…
An interesting case that was currently brought before the Supreme Court was Missouri vs. Frye. I found this case interesting due to the injustice that was provided by Frye’s counsel, and that Frye insisted on committing the same crime over and over again even though he knew he had an open case concerning driving under a suspended license. There were many sources and jurisdictions related to criminal law that also relates to this case. Criminal liability is when one takes responsibility for committing a crime, and accomplice liability is when someone helps someone commit a crime. Actus reus means guilty act, mens rea means guilty mind, and concurrence means the equality of rights. Actus reus and mens rea are both necessary in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability.…
From the beginning of time there have always been crimes against persons. People went by the saying “An eye for an eye”. You stole from your neighbor, they stole from you. You hurt someone, they hurt you. It wasn’t until the 1940’s people started taking a closer look into these crimes against person, which they later called victimology. This paper will look into victimology and their theories as we go back into the past and how victimology is now.…
The basic components of a criminal offense are listed below;[2] generally, each element of an offense falls into one or another of these categories. At common law, conduct could not be considered criminal unless a defendant possessed some level of intention — either purpose, knowledge, or recklessness — with regard to both the nature of his alleged conduct and the existence of the factual circumstances under which the law considered that conduct criminal. However, for some legislatively enacted crimes, the most notable example being statutory rape, a defendant need not have had any degree of belief or willful disregard as to the existence of certain factual circumstances (such as the age of the accuser) that rendered his conduct criminal; such crimes are known as strict liability offenses.[3]…
In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). This article describes the law of assault and battery as it is commonly applied, although the law may vary in any specific jurisdiction.…
The theory of specific deterrence holds that criminal sanctions should be so powerful that known criminals will never repeat their criminal acts.…
Provocation associated with road rage is a plea that arouses serious debate over a variety of factors. First, conduct will be assessed and it will have to be determined whether the accused’s actions meet the relevant requirements of conduct. Additionally, it must be decided whether provocation associated with road rage is a valid defense that will exclude liability, merely a mitigating factor in sentencing, or not a valid defense. The consequences that arise over allowing or disallowing such a plea and the precedent that such a decision will set is the final consideration to be taken into account.…