Discussing the Criminal Liability of People - Essay Example

Criminal Law Number Department Introduction Criminal liability refers to the culpability for acts or actions that harm, and these acts being prosecutable by the government, through its courts. Crimes from which criminal liability is derived, differs from tort, since criminal liability requires intent. This is to the effect that criminal liability has to fundamentally factor actus reus and mens rea, as is required by the legal systems spelt out in the Black Letter Law. The reality, dynamics and principles of criminal liability will thus be seen in light of the case or the development that takes place among Andrew, John, Tracey and Dr. Hawthorne, as shall be seen. Discussing the Criminal Liability of Andrew Chances for Andrew’s criminal liability are very high. As previously stated, the Black Letter Law specifies the need to factor actus reus and mens rea when determining criminal liability. As touching, mens rea, Andrew clearly has a criminal liability, since his mental elements are voluntary, purposeful and in line with a criminal intent. Facts that support or evidence Andrew’s criminal intent are: him wanting to eliminate Sue (which leads to and is made manifest by); him hiring a hit man to murder Mrs. Sue; and him setting a ? 5,000 bounty on Sue’s head, as the hit man’s reward. The aforementioned elements immediately above are serious and interrelate with one another. The idea of Andrew having a mental intent of getting rid of his wife Mrs. Sue, so that he could remain with Beth (the lady he is having extra-marital relations with), becomes self-evident, when he plans Mrs. Sue’s murder. This is further stressed when Andrew hires not just any murderer, but aseasoned hit man, John to fatally shoot Mrs. Sue. This shows Andrew’s commitment to arranging for Sue’s murder. Andrew’s intent to have Sue murdered is also evidenced by him supplying John with a gun, for the same purpose. Again, the same intent is made manifest in Andrew helping John identify Mrs. Sue, her car and where Mrs. Sue works. All these show that Andrew’s actions are previously thought. In a closely related wavelength, all actions that Andrew carries out readily and indisputably render him compos mentis. According to Dioso-Villa1, to argue otherwise in an attempt to render him non-compos mentis and to therefore insinuate that there can proceed, sustainable order from disorder. Andrew’s cognitive and mental orderliness is confirmed by the elaborate plan he crafted to have Mrs. Sue identified and eliminated. Again, this orderliness is confirmed by his attempts to keep the plan as discreet as possible. Even when he discovers that his son Tim has been mistakenly murdered in place of Mrs. Sue, he does not report the matter to law enforcement authorities. This shows that Andrew knew very well that his acts are criminal and thus preferred to steer clear of polices’ involvement. In another instance, Andrew’s mental intent to commit the crime of murder is confirmed by him driving himself up to their house, to kill Sue, by himself. It is clear that Andrew’s criminal intent is the very factor that made him to drive to their home. He does this after realising that his previous plan to murder Sue had fatefully backfired. He then willfully opens up an argument with Sue to provoke an argument, so that he can be enraged into murdering Sue. This plan becomes successful. In respect to the immediately foregoing, the previous planning by Andrew rules out any chances for considering Andrew’s murderous acts as second or/ and third degree. Moreover, Andrew’s act of repeatedly stabbing Mrs. Sue speaks of a mental criminal intent and rules out third or second degree murder.This is to mean that Andrew is certainly answerable for first degree murder. The converse is also true that Andrew also is responsible, based on his actions (actus rea).Indeed, Andrew performs actions that are criminal in nature, or before the law. Andrew hires the services of an experienced hit man (John), for the purpose of murdering Mrs. Sue, his wife. Andrew also provides John with a gun for the same purpose. He also helps John identify Sue, in order that John kills Sue. He also places a ? 5,000 reward for John, should he be successful in murdering Mrs. Sue. Above all, actus rea is also seen in Andrew’s act of stabbing Mrs. Sue to death, after driving to his home, for the same purpose. It is also true that there is a strong aspect of correlation between actus and mens rea, in Andrew’s criminal acts. In Andrew’s case, the criminal intent precedes, coexists with and also activates his criminal acts. Andrew’s willful intention towards Mrs. Sue serves as the mens rea. This willful intention activates: the hiring of a hit man; the provision of a weapon of murder; the identification of the target of murder; and the actual murder of Mrs. Sue. At the same time, it is this intent that provokes and precedes these acts. Conversely, going by Francisco and Inmaculada’s argument, the principle of proximity of cause still further makes Andrew very culpable of Mrs. Sue’s murder. From the case presented, it is also a fact that Andrew’s act is the very element that causes the death of Mrs. Sue. It can be logically proven that Andrew’s act of stabbing Mrs. Sue in their home directly causes her death. The truthfulness of this standpoint is well confirmed by the fact that Mrs. Sue’s death would not have occurred without Mr. Andrew’s act of stabbing his victim. It is the complexity of this proximity of cause that somewhat frees Andrew of Tim’s death. A critical study of input made by scholars such as Shain and Higgins2 compels one to surmise that although Andrew is involved in Tim’s death (in that he orchestrates elements that trigger Tim’s death), yet there are other intervening events that occur between Andrew’s act and Tim’s death3. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the fact that without Andrew’s input, Tim would definitely not have died. This is to say that there is no way Andrew may be fully absolved from the crime of Tim’s murder. Because of this, Andrew may be answerable to charges of fourth degree murder, in respect to Tim’s death. Discussing the Criminal Liability of John It is also given that John is liable of a crime. First, it is important to acknowledge the fact that when it comes to the case touching on Mrs. Sue’s death, John may not be responsible for the crime of her murder. This is because John merely had mens rea, in regards to attempts at Mrs. Sue’s death, but (he) does not actualise actus rea. This is to mean that even though John had the criminal intent of killing Mrs. Sue, he did not kill Mrs. Sue. In this case, mens rea cannot be acted upon in itself, on the account that the scope and intent of the law is not to punish criminal ideas, but those who act upon the same ideas, in their own will. Because of this, John may be absolved of the burden of first degree murder. Conversely, John may be guilty of fourth degree murder in light of Mr.Tim’s death.This is because, even though he intended to murder Mrs. Sue and not Mr. Tim, yet his actions led to Tim’s death. It is obvious that John had no criminal intent towards Tim, but this does not absolve him from legal responsibility. This is because, even in the absence of mens rea (in respect to Tim’s death), it is still John’s firing shot that sets off the chain of events that would lead to Tim’s death. In respect to the immediately above fact, John’s responsibility regarding Tim’s death can be said to be in order, since his act meted out a great deal of bodily harm on Tim, and thereby necessitating the need to accord Tim medical attention from a healthcare institution where he would finally meet his death. Although it is likely that John’s attorney may cite proximate cause as not being sufficient enough to make John answerable to the crime, yet his acts seriously harmed Tim. He shot Tim, drove him in the car boot and dumped him in a ravine. The fulfillment of proximate cause in this case is emphasised by the fact that outside John’s firing shot at Tim, Tim may not have needed to go to the hospital where he died through Dr. Hawthorne’s negligence. Discussing the Criminal Liability of Tracey Tracey has also, criminal liability, in the proceeding development. However, it is most plausible that the case Tracey should answer is that of professional negligence. That there is a case Tracey should answer is a matter that is shown by the fact that there was a legal duty that was binding Tracey to act responsibly towards Tim. However, Tracey did not extend this reasonable step. The legal duty that is binding Tracey to help Tim is that of a police officer to the public. Tracey should have been compelled by the legal duty, the duty of care and the professional code of conduct, to help Tim who had been shot and dumped in the ravine. Although this is the very fundamental factor upon which third degree murder is premised, yet the culpability of Tracey is still far-fetched, since Tracey does not meet the threshold needed for third degree murder. The failure to meet the threshold for a case on third degree murder is emphasised by the fact that Tracey’s act of indifference or negligence, though being existent and serious, does not meet the aspect of causation. This means that, it cannot be shown that Tracey’s act of bypassing Tim may have served as the actual cause of Tim’s death. On the contrary, the act that directly leads to Tim’s death is the failure by Dr. Hawthorne to read notes on Tim’s medical profile- a mistake that killed Tim, through the administration of drugs Tim is negatively reactive to. The issue of third degree murder can only be factored if it is shown conclusively that the act of Tracey leaving Tim in the ravine in his serious condition delayed the administration of medical intervention on Tim and that this subsequently causes Tim’s death. In respect to the foregoing, it is important to note that Tracey’s offence is not of a criminal nature, but that of negligence. The absence of mens rea (the criminal intent of the criminal) is the fundamental factor that absolves Tracey from a criminal charge.At the same time, Tracey’s act of negligence was not underpinned by an already premeditated thought. Properly, Tracey’s act can be best summed up as recklessness. This is because the defendant (Tracey) foresaw specific consequences which may occur, but proceeds with a given conduct, without caring whether such consequences may materialise or not. Tracey as a police officer knew that neglecting Tim in the ravine may cause Tim’s death, but she went about her business, not minding whether Tracey would die or not. Discussing the Criminal Liability of Dr. Hawthorne It is important that Dr. Hawthorne is also considered in the case, since his action or inaction aids Tim’s death. From the information availed, it is clear that Dr. Hawthorne is culpable for third degree murder, on several grounds. First, it is clear that Dr. Hawthorne previously had not harboured any premeditated thoughts to harm Tim. Because of this, it is impossible to factor in place, criminal intent, since mens rea is not in place. Likewise, mens rea is always vital in proving that a criminal act has been committed, just as Robinson and Grall4 point out. The absence of criminal premeditation or criminal intent on the side of Dr. Hawthorne totally absolves him from the baggage of first degree murder5. In almost the same vein, the absence of the intent to cause harm or the criminal intent is important to factor, since it frees Dr. Hawthorne from the responsibility related to second degree murder. Stell-Lance6 shows that second degree murder is still heavily reliant upon intent, since it is actually killing with the intent to merely cause harm, but not to kill. This is similar to shooting someone in the hand, wishing (only) to harm him, only for the casualty to bleed to death. Nevertheless, the concept of intent is still operational in second degree murder, and Dr. Hawthorne does not have a jot of it. A critical analysis of the development at hand is that Dr. Hawthorne caused Tim’s death. This is because,through his failure to read Tim’s medical profile or notes, Dr. Hawthorne administered pain killers which Tim was allergic to, and thereby killing Tim. Dr. Hawthorne’s liability to murder in this case is emphasised by the fact that his act and inaction lead to Tim’s death. However, Dr. Hawthorne’s acts that lead to Tim’s death can be said to amount to third degree murder. This is because third degree murder is killing which results from negligence or indulgence. Dr. Hawthorne’s failure to read Tim’s notes or medical profile makes him to administer pain killers which Tim is allergic to. This causes Tim’s death. Apart from the aforementioned, even the Great Britain Law Commission7 asserts that for there to be third degree murder, there has to be legal duty, on the side of the defendant. In this case, the aspect of legal duty is underlined by the fact that healthcare rules and code of ethics bind Dr. Hawthorne to exercise full duty of care that is due to Tim as the patient. Because of the duty of care, Dr. Hawthorne should have taken responsible steps such as reading Tim’s notes or profile in order to establish his physiological medical stature. This should have helped him determine the right kinds of medicine to administer on Tim, his patient. Because he failed to take this responsible measure, he caused Tim’s death. Because of the absence of mens rea or even the criminal intent and premeditation, the defendant cannot be said to have committed first and second degree murder. Again, Dr. Hawthorne cannot be considered as a candidate for first and/or second degree because there is no correlation between mens rea and actus rea. There is no mens rea to say that it (mens rea) anteceded, triggered and run alongside the execution of the actus rea (the negligent administration of medicine) which in turn triggered Tim’s death. In fact, it is not malice or previously thought negative intent, but fatigue that causes the failure to read Tim’s profile, on the side of Dr. Hawthorne. Moreover, the defendant’s culpability to crime of third degree murder is underscored by the principle of Proximal Cause. From the case presented, it is very clear and beyond any point of doubt that the defendant’s act actually and directly caused Tim’s death. It is very true that the failure to read Tim’s notes or medical profile on the side of Dr. Hawthorne, led him to administer medicine which Tim was allergic to. This allergy in turn, directly led to Tim’s death. Should Dr. Hawthorne have followed the dictates of duty of care, the proper steps of treatment and medical ethics, Tim could have come out of the entire episode alive. Summarily, one readily agrees with Shain’s8postulation that an act similar to Dr. Hawthorne can also be said to be liable for the charge of criminal negligence. As an actor, he did not really foresee the fact that specific consequence would stem from his action, though a reasonable person, being in the same circumstances, would have foreseen the same consequences and acted accordingly. As a medical practitioner, Dr. Hawthornemust have known very well, the import of following proper medical procedures when administering treatment, as being a life-or-death situation. Being tired in this case may not qualify for a legitimate excuse since going through Tim’s medical notes could not have taken much time and effort. Alternatively, Dr. Hawthorne should have sought the help of a nurse to go through Tim’s medical notes, if he was too tired to do so. It is this criminal negligence that in turn precipitated Tim’s death. References Dioso-Villa, R. “Turning up the Heat: Daubert and the Admission of Arson Experts in Criminal and Civil Cases.”[2008] 3 CP-ASC 2: 1. Francisco F. & Inmaculada, M. “Implementing the Culpability Principle under International and National Criminal Law.”[2004] 8 GJCCL 1: 5-114. Great Britain Law Commission. “Assisting & Encouraging Crime: An Overview.”[1993] A & EC: 24. Livings, B. “’Legitimate Sport’ or Criminal Assault? What Are the Roles of the Rules and the Rule-makers in Determining Criminal Liability for Violence on the Sports Field?”[2006] 70 JCL 6: 495-508. Robinson, P. H. & Grall, J. A. “Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond.” [2003] 35 SLR 2: 681-762. Shain, M. & Higgins, G. “The intoxication defense and theories of criminal liability: A paraxelogical approach.” [2007] 24 CDP 4: 731. Stell-Lance, K. “Close Encounters of the Lethal Kind: The Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense.”[2006] 49 L & CP 1: 114-124. Read More