After a thorough analysis of the facts of the case Resurfice v. Hanke, one can see that the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, to allow the appeal was definitely the right decision. The Supreme court made the right decision in establishing that it was Hanke’s contributory negligence that acted as the primary cause for the explosion. But for Ralph Hanke placing the hot water hose in the gas tank, the fumes would not have ignited and the explosion would not have happened. The Supreme court was right in realizing that regardless of the presence of minor design flaws, Resurifce should not be punished for Hanke’s error. Secondly the Zamboni was designed in a way to one could easily distinguish the two tanks.
Opponents of hate crime laws refer to the Supreme Court decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) in which freedom of thought was determined to be implied by the First Amendment. Supporters of hate crime laws argue that such legislation is indeed constitutional based on the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) that determined that hate crime laws
The major defence that was brought forward was deeming the man insane and incapable of comprehending the difference between right and wrong. Riel was against the allegations and was determined to pledge his own case that he was sane and his actions were justified in order to gain rights for the Métis people. His lawyers, however, “threatened to withdraw from the case” when Louis protested (Groarke, 2013, p.6). In addition, Groarke (2013) wrote of the defences Riel raised in his speech to the jury. His first statement was that Canada had no dominion over the Northwest Territories at the time of the uprising, deeming them as an invader (p.9).
The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in the case of In Re Gault the requirements for due process were not met. This has turned into a landmark case because it has altered the way the juvenile delinquent court system runs. A teenager of fifteen years old, Gerald Gault found himself accused of making an obscene telephone call. The victim was a neighbor Mrs. Cook, who reported the incident to police on June 8, 1964. A police officer then located Gault and arrested him on the charges (United States Courts).
Interrogation Assignment This documentary showcases a number of police interrogations that are problematic. The one that I believe is the most egregious is the interrogation of twelve year old Thomas Cogdell in the murder of his little sister, Kaylee. His entire interrogation was one big violation of his constitutional rights, not to mention it verged on psychological torture. The first of Cogdell’s constitutional rights to be violated was his 6th Amendment right to counsel. Although he was not yet placed under arrest, he was being interrogated in a police station and being asked incriminating questions.
The Supreme Court of India has explained the term obscenity in the light of morality by applying the Hickin Test. In Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra , the appellant was convicted under section 292 of Indian Penal Code for selling obscene publication (a book, Lady Chattereley’s Lover). Five judge bench held that something which is against public morality cannot be given freedom of speech and expression when the
The accused must be so far away at the relevant time that he could not be away at the place where the crime was committed. TAKE ON PLEA OF ALIBI IN DARSHAN SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB FACTS IN BRIEF: There was dispute between complainant and his relatives on one side and accused persons on the other side regarding their turn of irrigating their fields. On account of this, earlier there had been incidents of assaulting each other. Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against all the accused relating to offences punishable under various sections of IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge as against some of the accused is not proved and, as such, they were acquitted and sentenced some of the accused who were convicted for murder under s 302 of IPC.
The sexual intercourse must be under circumstances falling under any of the six clauses of the section. After laying down the essential ingredients of rape the Section goes on to state that, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. As per Section 376 A of the Indian Penal Code, the instances wherein the husband can be criminally prosecuted for an offence of marital rape are as under: 1. When the wife is between 12 – 15 years of age, punishable offence; 2. When the wife is below 12 years of age, punishable offence; 3.
Jenkins explicitly states that “America has to own this problem”. She then lists reasons for juvenile criminals to be a problem particular to America. Readers can easily counter Jenkins original argument by employing logical reasoning: if America is responsible for juvenile criminals, it is immoral to sentence juveniles to life without parole because these “criminals” are only followers of a greater cultural phenomenon. Furthermore, this is evident in the case of Lionel Tate. Tate was only twelve years old when he allegedly murdered six year old Tiffany Eunick while mimicking a wrestling move portrayed in popular media.
In 1999, the Swedish government took an unprecedented approach as the first country to prohibit the purchase of sexual services by passing the Sex Purchase Act (citation). This model became known as partial decriminalization which primarily focused on the Swedish government’s stance regarding prostitution as intrinsically harmful to women and a hindrance to the government’s goal
The Supreme Court “invalidated an absolute liability offence, under the section seven of the Charter. It was on the basis that it “could send a person to jail for driving with a suspended licence when that person is not have subjective fault (that is she did not know or was not aware of the risk that her licence was suspended). It went on to describe that “absolute liability offences offend the principle of fundamental justice by punishing the morally innocent, they will not violate section 7 of the Charter, unless they threaten the accused’s right to life, liberty and security of the person. The courts have upheld absolute liability offences that could not result in
434 (E.D. Va. 1990), this Court examined whether the special relationship analysis retained any viability after Deshaney. Swader concerned whether a prison employee, required by the State defendants to live on prison grounds, could state a cause of action under § 1983. Therefore, suit stemmed from the rape and murder of plaintiff 's daughter by a prisoner permitted, in violation of prison regulations, to work unsupervised in the non-fenced portion of prison property where plaintiff and her daughter resided. However in the case of Weller v. Department of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 392 (4th Cir.
Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 and Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 imposed very similar factors and set down the some constitutional question for the court, however the outcome of the cases where completely different. The Bowers case originated in Atlanta Georgia, the Lawrence case had taken place in Houston Texas. In both cases local police officers responded to anonymous calls reporting burglaries of private residences, however when police officers arrived at the specified addresses they found a couple involved in homosexual sodomy. In both cases police proceeded with arresting both men and charged them with the respective sodomy laws, in both cases both men were convicted in trial, in both cases ended up before the United States Supreme Court on
This case began when officers were responding to a weapons disturbance on a private residence. When the police entered petitioner Lawrence’s apartment, they witnessed him and another male, petitioner Garner, engaging in consensual sexual act. Both petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse, which was in violation of the Texas statute that forbade two people of the same sex to to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. The State Court of Appeals held the sentence and said that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court had considered a case, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, pushing the point across.
Canada currently only has laws in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia regarding this topic, but they are notably ineffective. It should be taken a step further in Canada and be part of our legislature that criminals cannot only be unable to receive funds from the sale of their crimes, but they should be prohibited from even publishing them. Even if only the Son of Sam laws were passed by the Canadian Senate, it would be a benefit to the citizens of Canada, as the crown could seize the royalties and copyright to any work that describes a criminal act written by the person convicted of that crime. The crown could then give compensation to the victim or their next of kin. Either of these proposed laws would reinforce the fundamental value that crime does not pay.