Paranoid Personality Analysis - Case Study Example

Question: Alan has a paranoid personality and is prone to depression. Betty is Alan's girlfriend. She is having an affair with Clive and does not conceal this fact form Alan who feels demeaned and angry. Betty comes home form the pub one day and announces to Alan that she is going to leave him for Clive. She packs her bags and goes. Not knowing what to do, Alan picks up a hunting rifle and goes in search of Clive. He looks through the pub window and sees both Betty and Clive together. Whilst taking aim at Clive with the rifle, Dennis, an old friend from the pub, staggers over Alan and gives him a hard slap on the back. Alan stumbles whilst pulling the trigger and shoots a paraffin lamp on the bar. It ignites and the pub catches fire. The landlord of the pub, Ed, has piled crates in front of the fire exits so the only escape is through the narrow door. Clive dies in the fire and Betty collapses in an attempted escape. She is taken to the hospital but is diagnosed as being in a 'persistent vegetative state." She receives life support treatment. After one month, however, Doctor Fiona decides that Betty is unlikely to ever again consciousness and so authorizes the termination of life support. Benny dies two weeks after. 1. Discuss the criminal liability of Alan for: a. The deaths of Betty and Clive paying particular attention to actus reus, mens rea, and defenses; b. The fire damage to the pub paying attention to actus reus and mens rea. 2. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Ed for the deaths of Betty and Clive. 3. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Doctor Fiona for Betty's death. Answer: In order to arrive answer to each of the questions, let us take first an overview on how criminal liability may be incurred in the commission of an offense in the United Kingdom and the available defences he can utilize to lessen or even negate his criminal liability. The Concept of Crime and Criminal Liability In almost all criminal laws, crime is defined as an act or omission in violation of an established law of the place where the crime was committed. Act refers to an overt movement of any part of the body, while omission refers to one's failure to act or to perform a lawful duty which he is obliged to do. In order for an act or omission to be considered as a crime, there must be a law punishing that act or requiring a person to perform such lawful duty. Such laws may be the common law that are utilized in the United Kingdom, or a statute, like the Modern Penal Code, which is passed by the legislature of countries like the United States. Crime is a generic term. It is used interchangeably with the term felony, violation or infraction by the criminal law of other countries. In the United Kingdom, an act or omission punishable by law is called as "offence." The violator may be termed as offender or defendant. A crime may be committed against a person like murder, against a property like theft, and against honor like defamation or intriguing against honor. When a person commits an offence, he is usually subjected to two liabilities. First is the civil liability which is the payment of the damages capable of pecuniary estimation in monetary form; and the second is the criminal liability which will subject the offender to life imprisonment, imprisonment for several years, or even death sentence, if found guilty. This research will only discuss that offences that can be committed against persons in the United Kingdom, the criminal liability the offender may incur, and the available defences he can utilize to lessen or even negate his criminal liability. Actus Reus and Mens Rea Under the English common law, criminal liability could only be incurred if two of its essential elements are present which are the actus reus and the mens rea. These essential requisites of criminal liability were based on the common law jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and are expressed in the Latin principle "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea," which means "an act does not make a person guilty unless (his) mind is also guilty." (Coke, chapter 1, folio 10). Actus reus is a Latin term which means "guilty act." In order for this element to exist, the act that constitute the crime and which is prohibited under an existing law at the time of its commission, must be committed by the offender voluntarily. In the crime of murder for example, the actus reus is the act of killing. In order to establish the commission of actus reus, voluntariness is an important factor. The English case of Hill v. Baxter held that an act must be voluntary for the defendant to be guilty. Mens rea is also a Latin term which means "guilty mind." It refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus. This means that at the time a person commits a crime, he must have possessed his full mental sensibility in order for him to be criminally liable. The general rule is that criminal law will not apply to a person who has acted with mental illness. Under the common law concept of a crime, mens rea is referred to as the element of malice aforethought or constructive malice. The existence of mens rea may be known based either of the following test: a) Subjective - the court is satisfied that the accused purposely, knowingly or intentionally committed the crime; b) Objective - where the requisite mens rea is imputed to the accused, on the basis that a reasonable person would have had mental element in the same circumstances; or c) Hybrid - where the test is both objective and subjective The modern day statutes, however, abolished the traditional element of malice aforethought as mens rea in an offence (sec.1, Homicide Act 1957). Modern laws now called this the attendant circumstances of an offence that help determine the level of culpability or fault of an offender. These attendant circumstances also are useful in determining what exact offence the offender committed. An example attendant circumstance is intention. Intention refers to the desire of a person to commit an act for a foreseen result or consequence. When intention is proven, the offender is liable to suffer the maximum penalty as provided by the statute violated. In the United Kingdom, some of the statutes that are now being used in determining the offence committed by a person and the extent of his criminal liability are the Criminal Justice Act 1967, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, HomIcide Act 1957, and the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The laws of England also provided for defences that may negate or mitigate the criminal liability of an offender. In the offence of homicide for example, a person who killed another because he defended himself (self-defence) is justified to have not committed a crime, therefore, have no criminal liability can be imposed against. Other defences include insanity, provocation, and diminished responsibility. Their effects on the criminal liability of a defendant will depend together with the attendant circumstances of the offence committed. Offence Against Persons In common law countries like the United Kingdom, unlawful killing of another human being with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought." That state of mind can be foreseen with the use of the defendant of a deadly weapon such as gun, conscious disregard of human life, and the commission of the inherently dangerous offence of murder itself. The actus reus is the unlawful killing of a human being which under a common law is malum in se, or by its nature is evil, thus, prohibited. The mens rea is the intention to kill that can be foreseen as previously stated. Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter which is a less serious offense than murder. It has which is of two kinds: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter arises where the accused kills another with the intent but is not criminally liable because of a mitigatory defence such as diminished responsibility. Involuntary Manslaughter when the accused caused death of the victim without intention but through recklessness or criminal negligence (R v Creamer, 1966 1 QB 72). Justified or accidental killings are termed as homicides. Depending on the circumstances, homicide may or may not be considered criminal offence. Section 2 (1) of the Homicide Act 1957 provides: "Where a person kills or is party to a killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by diseased or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing." The aforethought provision of the law also supported the availability of the defence of diminished responsibility that generally mitigates criminal liability of an offender. Diminished responsibility covers a wide variety of mental illnesses that cannot be defined as insanity. Insanity only affects the cognitive process of the insane, while diminished responsibility is a substantial impairment caused by the abnormality of the mind that affects the perception, cognition, emotion, the ability of a person to exercise will power, and can provide other state of the mind falling outside the mental definitions of illness and abnormality. An example of this is a paranoid personality like that of Alan in this case. On the other hand, Insanity is a special circumstance that when properly defended absolves a defendant from criminal liability but will be confined in a mental institution at the discretion of the court (M' Naghten Rules). The Criminal Liability of Alan for the Deaths of Betty and Clive Alan committed (involuntary) manslaughter. Initially, the mens rea his intention was to commit the crime of murder with the use of a firearm. The intention was achieved. However, it is worth noting that the fire occurred because Alan fired at the paraffin lamp whilst stumbling that shows his intention to kill. He unlawfully killed the two, which is the actus rea of the question, through recklessness or criminal negligence that lessen the offence from murder to manslaughter. In the other hand, the death of Betty was caused by Doctor Fiona when she ordered the termination of the life support.. With the presence of his paranoid personality as defence of diminished responsibility, his criminal liability, however, should be mitigated. The Criminal Liability of Alan for the Fire Damage Alan is not criminally liable for the fire damages in the absence of mens rea to cause the fire, which is the intent to commit the crime of arson (which is the crime of intentional destruction of property by burning or with the use of fire). The fire occurred when he accidentally hit the paraffin lamp due to the intentional hard slapping on his neck by Dennis. His original intention was only to kill Clive and not to burn the pub. The general law states that in order for criminal liability to incur, actus reus and mens rea must at the same time occur in the crime committed. However, since a damage was made, Alan can be made civilly liable to pay in the form of money since diminishing responsibility do not apply to exempt an offender from the civil liability of the crime he committed. The Criminal Liability of Ed for the Deaths of Betty and Clive Ed is not criminally liable for the deaths of Betty and Clive in the absence of actus reus and mens rea to commit the crime. Thus, he may be civilly liable because if it is prohibited to place obstructions on fire exits. If not on that obstruction, there is a strong possibility that Betty should have escaped the incident. The Criminal Liability of Doctor Fiona for Betty's Death Doctor Fiona is criminally liable for the offence of murder. In the United Kingdom, Euthanasisa or mercy killing is not allowed. Any act with intent to kill is murder regardless of the good purpose. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Homicide Act 1957. OPSI: Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved on January 4, 2008, from Read More