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. Case summary Mr. Schoenborn, the …show more content…
Schoenborn not criminally responsible for the murder of his children is undisputable and an appropriate decision based on the evidence and the administration’s objectives. The actus reus of the case cannot be disputed, as the accused confessed to the crime and both the defence and the crown agree that Mr. Schoenborn killed his children. However, the mental element of the crime is arguable, as the possibility of Mr. Schoenborn being in a psychotic state during the time of the offence is high. The evidence to support the fact that he did not form the mens rea of the crime can be derived from his history of mental illness as well as the evidence given by Ms. Clarke that he was a good and caring father. This demonstrates that he greatly cared for his children and their safety but was prone to having psychotic episodes that muddled his mind and led him to commit dangerous and unusual acts. There is also an inclination to believe that if he had not suffered from this state, then the offence would not have been committed, specially not in the barbaric way it was done. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the accused willfully preformed the act, nor that the mens rea and the actus reus coincided while he was not in a psychotic state. (Roach, 113) Related to this finding is another element that supports the verdict of the Honorable Judge, which is the Principle of Fundamental Justice that states that no one should be “punished for morally involuntary actions.” (Roach, 82) A person who successfully raises the mental disorder defence is considered to be morally innocent of the act because they were not acting freely, in this case, free from psychotic ideations. (Roach, 83). As previously mentioned, the mental element can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, thus making Mr. Schoenborn a morally innocent person. Any other verdict would have violated this principle on which the legal administration is founded on
Equality in the court and relating to women is closer to being achieved then it was during this case. 5. Personal Decision If I were the deciding judge on the panel I would come to the following conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to suggest both the innocence and guilt of Mrs. Osland. Due to this and the inconsistency with to David Albion’s verdict I would quash the conviction and order a retrial.
In 1967, William Baird was arrested after giving away vaginal foam to a 19 year old woman following a lecture at Boston University about contraceptives and over-population. At the time, in Massachusetts, it was felony offense to disburse birth control methods to unmarried men or women. Eventually, Eisenstadt v. Baird was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1972. In a 6-to-1 judgement, the Court ruled against the Massachusetts statute, but it was not in aggreeance with the due process of Griswold v. Connecticut, instead it was the Equal Protection Clause that was the deciding factor as reported by Justice William J. Brennan.
There were many court cases that were discussed in class regarding the mob versus the individual. The most important ones were the United States v. Schwimmer, Roe v. Wade, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and Brown v. Board of Education. In all but one of the cases above, the Mob (the government) used its power to stop the individual from pursuing their American dream. The individual was right in all of the cases because they had the right to express themselves and pursue their dream; and the government had to right to stop them from following it. Starting with the Schwimmer case, the individual was right because the government was not giving her a valid reason as to why they were denying her citizenship.
The public has reacted with incredulity that the court’s definition of behaviour showing “innocence of murder” could include the extended deception and dishonest conduct of this man, who has continued, day after day, month after month, year after year to conceal the truth about his wife’s death (Couriermail 2016). The success of Baden-Clay’s appeal in turn, influences others in similar situations of spouse homicide and not only allows but encourages this deceptive behaviour. This would surely be detrimental to all of Queensland society and create an unsafe culture by opening this type of opportunity for future homicides and killings if all it takes to win a spouse homicide case was to dispose of the body so that there is no recognisable signs of trauma and enough evidence to be convicted of
In the case of Tara Brown’s murder, various groups of individuals are affected. As well as maintaining principles of fair punishment and deterrence, the criminal justice system has to consider perceptions of the victim’s family (secondary victim), the community’s demand for crime prevention, and the offender’s rights to a fair court hearing. The most likely outcome is imprisonment for Lionel John Patea due to committing an indictable offence. It is important to note that if this was only a case of domestic abuse without murder, it would utilise more time, effort and expenses to come to a resolution. This is due to the different circumstances and degree of abuse that the judge has to assess.
This phase caused three different psychiatrists to come in and testify on Brom’s mental state. The testimonies would be held up against the M'Naghten Rule. The 140 year old standard which holds that a criminal defendant can’t be held responsible for a crime if he did not know the nature of his act or that it was morally wrong. There was a huge argument in this case over whether or not David Brom was mentally insane. Seven out of the eight health professionals who evaluated David found him to be mentally competent.
As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another. One of the issues regarding this case was where a police officer had been found attempting to pressure forensic pathologists to alter their case reports to align with their best interests.
Sufferers often show regular intellectual functioning and are able to display affection. This explains why he is “stressed” when ask to be a witness. After he killed John and ran out of the house he began to get paranoid and show anxiety. He shows the anger from feuds with John Hossack and, after the trial by his “violent” tendencies. This evidence makes him obviously capable of killing him.
The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.
The case worker failed to utilize two important sources of information that could have made a difference in the verdict for the case ruling of parental rights and the removal of the kids from both of their parents. The first source was from Jan Delipsey, the psychologist that supervised the visit between Katy Krasniqi and her children. Jan Delipsey brought forth information to the court about how she personal felt about the disregard of the children heritage and religion being look over. She was concerned with the fact that the children had an uncle who had expressed interest in adopting them, but was overlooked by the caseworker assigned to the case. The caseworker replied to the notion with, “I have not, and would never investigate relative placement in this case, because these people always stay together”.
In “The Brain on Trial”, David Eagleman claims that the justice system needs to change its sentencing policies due to the discoveries of neurobiological diseases that cause their sufferers to behave in socially unacceptable ways and/or commit crimes. Eagleman uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to present his viewpoint. The most important one is his appeal to logic. By using mostly examples, along with direct address to the readers, Eagleman is able to argue that the legal system has to modify its sentencing policies to take into account the advances made in neuroscience due to the increase in the amount of accused and/or convicted people who have been found to have harbored some kind of brain disease or damage. Eagleman
Madness is found everywhere: on the streets, in our neighborhoods, and even in our own families. It is believed to be fairly common that a plea of insanity is brought into the courtroom as a means of justifying some heinous crime. Under that assumption, it is reasonable to conclude that a large proportion of convicted murderers plead insanity to escape the ultimate punishments for their crimes. In reality, less than one percent of felony cases result in a successful plead of insanity (Cevallos). In "The Cask of Amontillado," Edgar Allan Poe tells the tale of the fictional death of Fortunato at the hand of Montresor.
The court dismisses the plea quickly because “the justice system ignores psychosocial complexities and histories in favor of black and white definitions of right and wrong” (Myers). The justice system in this time very rarely accepted pleas of insanity or mental illness. Capote wrote that “after an hour’s conversation with the defendants, the doctor rule[d] out that neither man
I saw the jury sitting at a long table. “Good morning,” I said nervously. “Today I am here to speak with you about the current situation of the suspect’s mental health. The suspect has had violent outbursts, and even believed hallucination. I believe that this man is not well.
Skloot showed that the lack of consent and uninformed patients, by the use of logical conventions, not only ran through the family’s history but still occurred to them