The only problem with his argument is that he was not using realistic examples in his writing. Levin states that torture can be morally mandatory, justified, and can prevent future evils. I still agree that torture could be necessary if truly needed, but I believe he could have made a better argument for his position on the
Critics of the insanity plea often contend that a crime is still a crime, and it does not matter who committed it, sane or insane. Opponents of this defense also question, “They are criminals, so who cares if they are sent away?” In truth, it is still a crime, however, this crime cannot be considered guilty, if the defendant had no criminal intent to do so. When dealing with a person who is mentally incapable to comprehend and do certain things, one must analyze their thought process. Some people are eminently schizophrenic, and believe they are doing the world a favor by “eliminating” another individual.
To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,
The issue is whether M. Bega’s conduct was outrageous and intolerable. This element is satisfied when the outrageousness requirement "is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved." Id. "It is insufficient for a defendant to have acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal." Russo v. White 241 Va. 23. Rather, "liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
One of Gopniks main point states that the Bill of Rights emphasizes process and procedure rather than principle. What this means is that a criminal can abuse his rights for his own protection. For example Gopnik quotes Stuntz by saying that a criminal can get off a charge simply because the officer who made the arrest didn 't have a proper warrant. This proves the basis of the Bill of Rights following the one track minded belief that process and procedure is the only way to properly operate a system. Both Stuntz and Gopnik believe that the Bill of Rights could be the cause of the unstable justice system that plagues our communities today.
A criticism for unlawful act manslaughter is that death could result of being unexpected, if the same act resulted in minor injury then the defendant would be liable for the offence of actual bodily harm, secondly, a defendant who did not realise there was a risk of any injury is still guilty because of the objective nature of the test. Therefore the law relating to involuntary manslaughter is outdated and insufficient and is in need of reform. The law commission had recommended to get rid of unlawful act manslaughter as it was so outdated that it was difficult to convict the defendant on the basis that the defendant was to have realised there was some risk to another resulting in the unlawful act. In the law commission have recommended a structure
Instead his is a determined will rather than a free will. Thus, his proposals for punishment were predicated on a rational and calculating human being (Beirne, 1993). This calculating man will weigh the pros and cons of commiting a criminal act and, if the punishment is swift enough and severe enough, he will desist from offending. If the benefits, however, outweigh the potential risks, he will violate the law.
General intent crimes can be defined as acts prohibited by law. Whether the defendant intended the result or not is irrelevant. Specific intent means that the defendant intentionally commits an act and intends to cause a particular result when committing that act. According to Brody and Acker (2010), there is a lack of clarity between the two terms which has led to many jurisdictions to abandon their usage. Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the prosecution must only prove
The test for cause in fact is whether the alleged negligence was a substantial factor in bring about the injury and without such injury the harm would not have occurred. “Substantial” means that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead the reasonable person to regard it as the
Most Americans have all at least one time in their lives were driving in an automobile, and while driving picked up a cell phone, eaten and or drinking, or even fixed your hair in the rear view mirror. While performing these acts you have to actually take your eyes and attention off the road and therefore your risk for an accident increases substantially. Some of the accidents could be minor however, a lot of the accidents could be and are fatal. These acts are called distracted driving and is defined as the act of driving and the driver is engaged in other activities. There are many things that can be classified as distracted driving however, the main culprits would be looking at a smartphone or cell phone, texting, eating or drinking, personal grooming, and using a GPS or the radio.