It is really important to distinguish between how the common law and Model Penal Code look at Attempt. Under common law, one is not guilty of attempt unless he is dangerously close to commit the crime after he takes a substantial step. However, in Model Penal Code land, one only needs to take a substantial change in order to be guilty of Attempt. Furthermore, under the common law, there is the legal impossibility and the factual impossibility. Legal impossibility which occurs when one’ conduct is not illegal could be used as a defense.
The use of force can be justified in self-defence and the prevention of crime by determining the burden of proof. In some situations there can be an overlap, where the claimant cannot rely solely on statutory defence. In the situation of a person not being capable of committing a crime – for example underage, or insane then they would have to rely upon the Common Law. The amount of force used in both must be reasonable. In the case of R v Cousins (1982) it was held that both defences are available to an
MLK distinguishes the two types of Law by using St Augustine’s theory on Natural Law, stating that a law is considered unjust when it “degrades human personality”. King relates this back to segregation. In other words, a law such as segregation degrades ones dignity and self worth so it is deemed an unjust law. Dworkin believes principles are a set of standards that upholds laws, to ensure justice and fairness is served. This way of thinking seems similar to MLK’s idea of morality being connected with the law
The overbreadth doctrine differs from the void-for-vagueness doctrine as it applies more toward violations of Constitutional rights rather than criminal situations. The most commonly protected activity that the overbreadth doctrine prohibits infringement upon is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech rights of the people, when a law is found to be overbroad it is commonly restricting the rights of the people to express themselves freely. An overbroad law may be so restricting the people may decide not to participate in an activity for fear of being charged with a
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat could be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear or physical harm. However offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate threat, does not justify the use of force in self-defense. Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor did not actually mean the perceived victim any harm (“Self-Defense Overview-
The doctrine of double effect states that in certain situations, ceteris paribus, it’s permissible to perform any good action, even if it comes with a lethal consequence, as long as one does not directly intend the unfortunate outcome. In other words, to carry out a wrong action for the purpose of achieving a good effect is never permissible, but foreseeing an unavoidable harm as the necessary byproduct of your right action is permissible. With this moral theory your action produces two effects: the one aimed at, and the one effect foreseen but may not have been intended. One must be able to tell the difference between oblique intention and direct intention when assessing a moral dilemma. For example, in this case of the man Smith who is abducted
Depending on the situation, and the law, civilians always have the right but there is a time for laws to be obeyed or rejected. For instance, Thoreau describes the machine of the government as injustice. He argues, when injustice has a link to the government one must consider the solution “to be the agent of injustice to… break the law” (Thoreau 9). Thoreau uses the analogy of the government being a strong machine of injustice to encourage people to purify the state by breaking laws. So, when citizens feel oppressed by the unjust nature of the government they will prevent unfair treatment.
This objection states that the guidance that lex provides is often wrong as it requires the state to be responsible for inflicting the same deeds on criminals which ultimately compromises the morality of law enforcement (186). This objection is relatively easy to support, however, there is potential to highlight the shortcomings within its argument. For example, it can be argued that there are rare situations in which rape can be justified and therefore not a punishable offence. The claim that there is a situation that rape could ever be considered a feasible action is preposterous in today's society, however, it is a situation in which this objection could be
Two theories that probably relate the best are the interactionist and the conflict theorist. The interactionist is primarily concerned with fundamental or everyday forms of interaction, including symbols and other types of nonverbal communication. One of the main assumptions of the interactionists, which directly relates to this article, is that we act according to our own interpretation of reality. The people and domestic terrorist groups described in this article all act the way they do because their interpretation of reality is to wipe out e.g. the government, or other groups of people.