Manslaughter Case Analysis - Coursework Example

Ben focuses on human rights thus his agility in curbing the utilization of beauty products amongst animals. As such, he plants a bomb in a leading lab in Sheffield city center. Before that, he offers a warning even though the person who disarms the bomb (Sarah) dies in the process.

Analysis of the case indicates that Ben will be charged with voluntary manslaughter.  According to Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou (2010, p. 25), Ben acknowledges that his actions pose significant risks and thus may result in the death of others. Nevertheless, such a person still pursues such dangerous acts thus making him liable based on the stipulations in the UK and most courts in the world. As such Ben will be guilty of unlawful manslaughter, which becomes manifest when one focuses on committing a less crime yet ends up killing someone. As such, it is evident that death arises from an act of omission.

Indeed, the stipulations indicate that the criminal may have embraced dangerous activities, which in turn resulted in death. Ben’s intention was noble since he was propagating nobility among the populace whilst dealing with animals. However, using a bomb was rather dangerous since the likelihood of death is increasingly high. According to Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou (2010, p. 25), Ben may have acted in conformity with men's rea since the act arose from recklessness and failure to foresee the likely repercussions of his actions.

For Ben’s action to constitute constructive manslaughter, it is paramount to acknowledge that Ben must have committed an unlawful act. As such, the placing of the bomb is unlawful since it distorts the working capacity of the individuals. Such an unlawful act ought to be combined with recklessness. Ben failed to consider that a bomb specialist might be dispatched to the area to address the fears. Ben’s intellect failed since he was focusing on the broader picture whilst shunning the chances of individual sufferers.

An analysis of diverse cases such as (R v Franklin [1883]) offers insight into constructive manslaughter (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou 2010, p. 25). In such a case, the defendant’s actions were objectively determined to discover their motive, which turned out to be appropriate but fuelled by recklessness.

The second crime pertains to criminal negligence since Ben acknowledged the danger that may have arisen from his actions but went ahead instituting such a crime. This means that Ben knows that his omission would lead to death. This is the reason attributable to his warnings to the police department since he believed that innocent persons should not be affected by his actions. However, his carelessness arising from the omission process was rather detrimental and is associated with gross negligence.