Recklessness, indeed is a term used to condemn the actions of a person who is the cause of an undesirable circumstance. It features as one of four possible mental states that may constitute the mens rea of a crime. To be reckless, a person is involved with ‘’the taking of an unreasonable risk of which the risk taker is aware.’’ However, it is important to note that the risk ‘’does not have to be foreseen as highly likely to occur.’’ Recklessness, a term that is commonly featured within the criminal law system, is said to be problematic as there is no set definition. Such confusion surrounding the idea of what amounts to being reckless has indeed prompted the Law Commission into releasing papers to remedy the issue. ‘Unchariness’, ‘dolus …show more content…
Stark points out that objective recklessness ‘’does not require such advertence to risk’’ unlike subjective recklessness wherein it was required that ‘’the accused foresaw an unjustified risk’’ and with that, objective recklessness was subject to criticism as it was seemingly concerned with a state of mind. This, allowed many defendants to evade liability as it is very precarious to expect a prosecution to be able to prove that a person foresaw a risk of harm occurring. Furthermore, ‘Caldwell recklessness’ paved way for unfair decisions being made in the courts such as in Elliot v C where young girl with learning difficulties was convicted of arson. The decisions caused an outcry as it led to the ‘’punishment of a defendant who fails to appreciate the risk she was incapable of foreseeing’’ . This unfair decision was reaffirmed in the later case of R v Coles where no allowances for age or a non-intellectual mind were made. However, the case of R v Hardie is contradictory to the precedent set by Elliot and Coles as the mental state of the defendant was indeed considered when delivering the …show more content…
Following this, the law can be clearly seen as reverting to what was set out in Cunningham. The decision to do so, was a welcome one by many. As Kimel suggests in stating, ‘’few, so it seems, will shed a tear; possibly, not too many will even notice’’ the consigned change to the meaning of recklessness in the history books. However, R v G did not evade critique with some being left disappointed in ‘’the failure of the House of Lords in considering an alternative to Caldwell or Cunningham recklessness’’ R v G, ultimately set out to clarify the law, with many agreeing that this aim was satisfied, although despite of this some may still argue that the law on recklessness is not clear as the House of Lords seemingly restricted recklessness to criminal
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
It was questioned if the killings of the supervisor and Mayor were premeditated. Also if the defendant had a mental condition, that prevented him from knowing right from wrong. In particular if he could he be diagnosed with a mental condition. That could possibly keep him from standing trial, and sent to a mental institution. The defendant was found to be depressed but not clinically depressed.
I INTRODUCTION TO SOLITARY CONFINEMENT It is somewhere around three a.m. in the morning. You wake up to an empty, cold room, no larger than 60 square feet, with nothing but four walls surrounding you. You are stripped, handcuffed and taken about 30 feet outside your cell where you are allowed a brief shower.
"Severe mental illness like psychosis can lead to a tragedy like this - that people can see things that aren't real and hear things that aren't real and believe things that aren't real, and act in that distorted reality." -Andrea Yates Andrea Yates, who was eventually found innocent, was convicted for the murder of her 5 children. Since then, this has been a very controversial court case where people’s opinions are all over the boards. The debate between her being guilty or innocent has created a calamity within the eyes of the court and everyone who was present during the trials.
Mrs. Smith English 111 Jan. 28, 2023 Rhetorical analysis: “Legal system has never had an answer for violent kids” In this article, the author, Stephen L. Carter, goes into detail on the reasons why the legal system is confused or conflicted on whether they should or shouldn’t charge young children below the age of 10 for their crimes. This article is somewhat controversial because of the recent case that happened in Virginia with the 6-year-old, but he uses this to his advantage to get his point across and to try and shed some light on the way the justice system has and continues to handle these cases in the past. Not only is the topic something controversial, but his opinion on what they could do and how to solve it is also controversial.
The case of R. v. Schoenborn is a troubling case involving the death of three children and the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This defence must be critically analyzed along with the evidence and expert opinions as it could absolve the accused of the charges. As well, the precedent that the verdict provides is critical to the legal system and its future implication and thus give the decision more importance. After a thorough examination of the facts, it is evident that the verdict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is correct and reflects the administration’s objectives and beliefs. This will be demonstrated through the application of legal principles and elements.
This article talked a great deal about how the rules and procedures when it comes to the insanity defense are inconsistent and unclear. United States v. Hinckley showed the public how inconsistent and unclear the criminal procedures are. The article provided a statement from a juror involved in the Hinckley case. The gist of the statement was that even the experts used in the trial could not determine the defendant’s sanity, which made it even harder for the jurors to determine as well.
In 1989, The Supreme Court decided the Penry v. Lynaugh case. Penry, the petitioner, was convicted of rape and murder and was sentenced to death. It was found that Penry, in a competency evaluation, was mentally retarded, known today as intellectually disabled, with an IQ of 54 (Penry v. Lynaugh,1989). Despite Penry’s IQ, the jury found that Penry was competent to proceed and further sentenced him to death. Although there was also an insanity plea, the jury rejected the defense and again sentenced him to death.
Negligence: Negligence is conduct that falls below the standards of behaviour established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. (Gayle, 2015) The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might forcible cause harm to other people. (Fein man, M. 2011) Negligence can be defined as a failure to take reasonable care or steps to prevent loss or injury to another person.
In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.
"The median amount of time taken to complete adult NCRMD cases was 132 days, which is 17% longer than the 113 days taken for non-NCRMD criminal court cases." (Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) This data demonstrates that those in charge of the case must know the case in order to set a just trial. "The verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) is a final decision reached when a judge or jury finds that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder while committing the criminal act and as a result is exempt from criminal responsibility (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, s.672.34). An individual found NCRMD is neither acquitted nor found guilty (Latimer and Lawrence 2006); the court or Review Board may make one of three dispositions: absolute discharge, conditional discharge, or detention in a hospital (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, s.672.54)."
Negligence is a term of art, but has different meanings in different jurisdictions. In ‘Tort’, damage is an essential ingredient but that element is not necessary in master servant relationship. In criminal law, there are channels of offences based on negligence in which loss or injury is immaterial; it is enough if the act is likely to cause injury or endanger life. Operating a patient without consent is an example of negligence even without actual damage. Dictionary meaning of term ‘Negligence’ is ‘Lack of Proper Care’.
It is possible to commit an act of indecency recklessly and it is shown in the judgment of two cases. In R v Mueller , the Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed Fitzgerald v Kennard and applied the reckless non-advertent concept to indecent assault. In this case, the appellant was charged with five counts of assault with act of indecency and was convicted of three counts. The complainant suffered from Asperger’s syndrome and schizophrenia.
Some actions, like journeys, have value regardless of the outcomes they produce. Williams brings this point about to show how the utilitarian’s focus on consequences might not be the best way to assign value to actions, since it has no way of accounting for the intrinsic values actions may have. Here I have to agree with Williams. The manner in which consequentialist judge actions does not seem to allow any room for considering a person’s intent behind choosing to commit that act. Williams seems to be more open to such considerations than Smart ever was in his