Criminal and Civil Litigation; Mental Health Law - Coursework Example

Criminal and Civil Litigation; Mental Health Law PART A: CRIMINAL LITIGATION ment of Facts This research paper explores the concept of Mens Rea in criminal law, as well as, what it represents in reality especially in respect to what it reflects in a Defendant’s culpability. The legal personalities explain Mens Rea as the mental state of a defendant. As such, it explores the mental capacity and state of the defendant in the moments or periods before the occurrence of the crime. The mental state of a defendant helps establish whether the crime was an intentional one or occurred out of accident. This considers what attorneys search for in most crimes, and as such consider it as a prerequisite or requirement for the occurrence of a given crime. In every criminal situation, the Mens Rea concept has to be present, which in simply terms is the Latin word for “a guilty mind.” Consequently, the concept of Mens Rea carries out an in-depth analysis of the mind of the defendant in the moment preceding the crime. This goes to explore the thoughts and intentions of the defendant during the committing of a crime as this plays a great role in determining the culpability of a defendant. As such, the concept of Mens Rea enables the criminal justice system to differentiate between an individual who did not plan or mean to commit a crime, and an individual who planned and set out intentionally to commit a given crime. This concept rules out crimes that were intentional from crimes that were accidental, even if the results of the crime were the same1. For example, in the event of a murder case, the attorneys of law can evaluate the case to determine whether it was pure murder case or manslaughter. The difference in these two legal terms is that the former was an intentional crime whereby the defendant plotted to kill the victim and actually executed his or her plan. On the other hand, the latter is an accidental crime whereby the defendant accidentally killed the victim without prior intentions to end their victim’s life, such as a case of self-defense, a stray bullet, or a riot stampede. The charges for both cases also differs depending on the legal position established by the judge, as well as, the prosecution team on the guilty mind of the defendant in the moments preceding the commitment of a given crime. For instance, the above case has the same charge, which is death of an individual, whether committed intentionally or otherwise. As such, the guilty party has to face the charges of the crime committed, and the extent of the punishment vented against him or her for the crime depends on their guilty conscience before the occurrence of the crime2. In the first case, where the defendant planned to kill and actually carried out his or her devious plan of eliminating the victim’s life, he or she is guilty of all the crimes and as such, requires facing the full force of the law. A good example of a planned death is that of a driver and a pedestrian. In this case, a driver set out to look for the pedestrian on the road or highway, and upon seeing him; he steered speedily towards him, hitting the gas pedal and slamming into him, and as such killing him instantly. This driver is liable to criminal charges because he intended to kill the pedestrian through a road accident, or at least harbored intentions of causing serious bodily harm to the pedestrian. This driver deserves to get the full force of the law charged for murder for intentionally eliminating the pedestrian. The defendant requires to get a little reprieve from the law because his or her crime was not intentional in the second case, where the defendant killed the victim accidentally through coincidence or otherwise. Going back to the same road accident discussed in the previous paragraph, the case would not be of murder through a road accident if the driver did not intentionally slam into the pedestrian to end his life. Such a case of unintentional murder would be in the event the driver never saw the pedestrian on the sidewalk of the highway until it was too late, maybe due to smoke or snow that was blinding long site vision while driving3. As such, when the driver eventually sees this pedestrian, it is too late for him to avoid hitting him, even after trying so hard to pull the brakes of the vehicle to stop the accident. The brakes either fail or falter, and the driver has no control in stopping the accident, hence ends up killing the pedestrian. This driver still has to face charges of the law, as he is liable for the death of his accident victim. However, he is likely to face only in civil court for monetary damages against the victim Even though both cases end up with the death of an individual through road accidents, the intentions of the two drivers involved in each case is very different. The determination of this difference arises from the evaluation of their guilty minds to rule out the one who intentionally planned to cause the road accident from the one who caused the road accident by sheer chance or coincidence. As such, the punishments vented by law to both of these drivers are substantially different. The first driver who intentionally killed his victim will face murder charges because he planned everything before executing his plans. On the other hand, the second driver who accidentally killed his victim will face manslaughter charges because he did not plan to kill the pedestrian. Charging from the two scenarios, even if the outcomes of the crime were the same, the two would get different punishments from the courts of justice. The first driver might get a life imprisonment for his crime while the second driver gets to serve a ten-year sentence for his crime, or in some cases only pay monetary damages to the family of the deceased. Issues The concept of Mens Rea explores every criminal context that precedes a given crime and punishes an individual basing on the adversity of his or her intentions before the occurrence of the crime. As such, it is also imperative for the legal minds to differentiate between carelessness and criminal in order to determine the true intent in every crime. The general reference given by legal minds to carelessness is negligence. This legal terminology refers to suits that in most cases result in only civil liability rather than criminal liability. This only holds true as long as there is no real intention behind the occurrence of the careless act. However, in some cases, general carelessness may turn into a serious culpable statute. This is because some criminal statutes heightened the standards of negligence to reckless negligence or criminal negligence. For instance, in a case of simple negligence, a neighbor can leave out some household items on his sidewalk, which may cause his neighbor to fall and suffer physical injuries. However, this case turns into pure malice if the neighbor leaves out a chainsaw, flammable materials, or knives on the sidewalk, which may cause their neighbor very serious injuries. In the evaluation of Mens Rea, it is always imperative for the legal authority to determine whether the actions were intentional or unintentional. In such a case, every intentional and harmful behavior is often a criminal act, while every unintentional harmful behavior may fall into two basic forms of law. The first is the “mistake of law” while the second is the “mistake of fact”4. A mistake of law rarely saves a defendant from the criminal liability imposed by the crime committed. This is in line with the common statement of law that outlines, “Ignorance is no defense”. This is the exact view that the law takes against everyone who commits a mistake of the law. As such, an individual who commits a crime unknowingly yet there is a law against that crime in the country, city or state, he or she will have to face the full force of the law, just as would be the case with every other criminal who orchestrated the crime with full knowledge. The aim of this stiffness of the law is to encourage every member of the public to learn and master all the laws operating or functioning within their jurisdictions. A good example of a mistake of the law is the case of an individual who sells cocaine honestly thinking it was legal for him to sell the drug. This does not matter as most governments have laws prohibiting the sell and consumption of cocaine in their jurisdictions, and as such classify them as hard drugs or narcotics. This may appear as being slightly unfair in the sense that the individual who was essentially dumb enough to think that the white powder he was selling was baking powder gets off, whereas the well-intentioned individual who honestly thought it was legal to pedal cocaine does not get off from the law. As such, the justification of this law stems from the fact that offering no tolerance for ignorance of the law is that by allowing ignorance as a defense in law, it would be discouraging people to learn the laws operating within their lands, and as such, end up undermining seriously the effectiveness of the legal system. On the other hand, a mistake of facts means that, even though the behavior of a defendant fits the definition of a crime in an objective sense, the defendant was very unaware of the illegality of his or her actions. For instance, in a case of a defendant selling illegal drugs and he or she is very unaware that whatever they are selling is in fact an illegal drug. A good consideration of such a case is whereby a defendant gives a plaintiff a bag filled with white powder in exchange for some bundles of cash honestly thinking is was baking soda. The defendant is mistaken to the fact that selling the white substance amounts to a critical crime because the white substance is in fact an illegal drug. Consequently, such a case lacks the necessary Mens Rea or a guilty mind that determines the mental intent necessary under the laws governing the sell and trafficking of illegal drugs in the country. This is because the defendant did not intend to sell the illegal drug, but rather intended to sell the baking soda, especially in consideration of the monetary differences between the sale of the baking soda and the street value of the illegal drugs5. Discussions In discussions, it is also important to explore the inner provisions of the Mens Rea concept, as well as, determine various cases where its application would be invalid. A good example is the examination of strict liability whereby it is not necessary to have Mens Rea. This is usually the case in certain criminal laws known as Strict Liability laws. These laws are stiff in their provisions of the law by maintaining that no matter what intentions a defendant had when committing a given crime, the crime or act itself deserves criminal punishment. In the justices system, most of the strict liability laws involve minors, such as the laws that prohibit selling alcoholic drinks to minors, or “statutory rape”. In such cases, it rarely matters if the defendant honestly thought that the minor was of legal age, mostly above eighteen years for statutory rape and over twenty-one years for sale of alcoholic drinks. This law always appears harsh to its victims. However, the underlying concept behind such a law is the protection of the minor rather than the probable innocence of the defendant Committing a crime knowingly is another aspect of Mens Rea that the legal minds should evaluate before making a decision on every criminal act. The legal provision of the law, especially under criminal law, requires a defendant to engage “knowingly” in an activity that is illegal in nature and style. The specific part of the offense that requires a defendant to commit it knowingly depends on the type of crime committed. A good example is in the drug trafficking laws, which require a defendant to knowingly import and sell illegal drugs, such as in the United States. As such, if the defendant carried the drug into the United States honestly thinking it was a gift given to him to deliver to a resident in the US and not a drug that is illegal, and then it is mandatory for the legal minds examining the case to establish the necessary Mens Rea. In such a case, there is no Mens Rea, and similarly there is no committing of a crime. Committing a crime willfully or maliciously is another concept that attorneys should evaluate when consolidating the necessary Mens Rea in a criminal case. Certain cases of criminal laws utilize the term willful and malicious in describing the necessary conduct of a crime. However, this does not add nothing to the concept of Mens Rea covered already in the aspect of committing a crime knowingly and intentionally6. Nonetheless, in some particular murder cases or statutes, there is a heightened concept form of knowingly/intentionally, and as such, may result into a very high degree of murder charges. The difference of this concept is that in one aspect, a defendant can get mad at someone and end up killing him or her in the passion. On the other hand, the case changes drastically when a defendant devises an elaborate plan to stalk and kill his or her victim. As such, the willful commitment of a crime means that the defendant knew whatever he or she was doing was illegal, but proceeded to do it anyways. Conclusions and Recommendations In conclusion, when the law examines a given case of criminal law and determines the Mens Rea in it, it is important for them to establish the motives behind every act. Establishment of a motive in crime is actually an indirect pathway of proving whether the defendant committed the criminal act knowingly or intentionally. For instance, in a case of assault, a defendant can claim that she slapped her victim accidentally, and as such, lacked the necessary intentions of assault, such as the true intention to cause direct bodily harm to her victim. However, if the prosecution team can establish and demonstrate that both the victim and the defendant were in a serious argument shortly before the occurrence of the alleged assault, such motive plays the role of a circumstantial evidence against the defendant, and as such, proves that she really intended to slap her victim. On the other hand, the defendant can also use the lack of evidence by the prosecution team of a motive to establish a “reasonable doubt” in order to avoid criminal liability. Therefore, it is imperative for the attorneys in the criminal justice system to evaluate each single case properly and determine the necessary Mens Rea in each case, as this differs depending on the various aspects used in its establishment7. PART B: CIVIL LITIGATION Statement of Facts This is a case of serious negligence by the hospital staff, which leads to a permanent brain damage for Mr. Alan. This is a heightened case of negligence because it leads to severe consequences on the life of the victim, and as such, falls under the category of reckless negligence, or criminal negligence. The case laws regarding the issue facing the plaintiff has to consider the extent of damage caused by the negligent acts of the defendants. The severity of the aftermaths effects of the negligent acts caused by the hospital on the life of Mr. Alan, forms the basis for legal jurisdiction, redress, as well as, punishment for the involved offenders. In general, the entire hospital is guilty for the damage suffered by Mr. Alan while under its care. Nonetheless, specific liability falls on a number of particular parties that involved themselves closely with his case. These include the Senior House Officer at the accident and Emergency room, Dr. Black, the Radiographer, Chief surgeon Dr. Friedel, Student Nurse Sarcevic This case involves six defendants and one plaintiff. The plaintiff is Mr. Alan who suffers a serious head injury while at his place of work, and ends up in a health facility to seek medical attention. On the contrary, instead of getting well and improving his medical condition, he ends up in an even worse condition due to reckless negligence from the hospital, as well as, the hospital staff that attended to him while at the facility. As such, the guilty parties in this case are the construction site where he worked, the hospital, the radiographer at the hospital, the doctor heading the accidents and emergency center of the hospital, Dr. Black, the student nurse Sarcevic, and the surgeon heading the operation team, Dr. Friedel. These are all the people that contributed to the grotesque condition that Mr. Alan ended up, from a strong and hardworking man to a “poor vegetable” without the mental capacity to attend to his own needs. They have to answer to the charges against them as they caused Mr. Alan to become a dependant when he was used to fending for himself and taking care of his own family8. The first defendant in this case is the employer of Mr. Alan. This employer is guilty for not preparing the working environment of his workers properly, and as such, the environment posed serious risks to the workers at the facility. This is evident through the injury that Mr. Alan suffered while he was at his place of work, meaning that if he did not work at that place, he would not suffer these injuries. Mr. Alan suffered serious head injuries after having an accident at his place of work. The cause of the accident was a scaffolding erected incorrectly at the premise that made him fall. The fall is what resulted into the severe injuries that he suffered, and as such required immediate medical attention. Even though the employer ensured that Mr. Alan reached a health facility within the shortest time possible in order to receive the necessary medical attention, he was liable for the fall that Mr. Alan suffered while working at his premises. The second guilty party in this case is the hospital where the employer rushed Mr. Alan in an ambulance after he suffered the accident. A hospital needs to give proper attention to every emergency case that comes to its attention especially because of the severity of the cases that they deal with, most of which are life and death cases. When a patient goes to the hospital in a serious health condition, he or she expects the hospital to take proper care of him and treat, as well as, nurse them back to proper health. However, if the hospital fails in performs its duty, then it is liable for civil charges. Mr. Alan arrived on time at the health facility, meaning that if he received the right medical attention fast, he would recover easily from his injuries. However, this was not the case with him, as the hospital lacked adequate staff to attend to its accidents and Emergency wing, thereby making patients suffer at the emergency wing for long hours before receiving the much-needed medical attention. For instance, there was only one doctor and a student nurse present to attend to emergency cases brought in at the A & E department of the hospital. These were Dr. Black and student Nurse Sarcevic. Mr. Alan had to wait at the holding lounge for two hours before he could get medical help, a time long enough to spell his death. In addition, the hospital lacked the right procedures of attending to emergency cases brought in at the hospital, which also contributed to the worsening health condition of Mr. Alan. This delay denies the patients brought in as emergency cases the opportunity to save their lives. The lack of proper equipment at the health facility is also another crime that the hospital should answer to, especially the X-ray machines. The failure of these machines costed Mr. Alan his brain by not indentifying clearly the skull fracture that he suffered9. The radiographer is the third victim in this case. The radiographer was to deliver X-ray reports on the skull and lumbar spine of Mr. Alan, which doctor Black would use in determining the extent of damages on his spine and skull. However, the equipment that he had to use to produce these images at the A & E department of hospital. As such, he was unable to transfer these images to the computer system leading to the transfer of faulty images. He had to use an older machine to take the X-ray images, which led to the production of an older style film of images. This older version of images was the beginning of the poor diagnosis made on the conditions of Mr. Alan while at the health facility, as it was impossible for the attending physician to examine all the critical areas on the X-ray images and deduce a conclusive report on the true condition of the patient. Dr. Black is the fourth defendant and carries the highest incidence of guilt in this whole issue. If the doctor were keen in her examination on the X-ray images produced for Mr. Alan, then she would be able to discover the damages he suffered on his brain. However, after Dr. Black requested fir an X-ray exam done on Mr. Alan’s lumbar spine and skull, she only focused her attention on the fractures that were evident through the images on the lumbar vertebrae of Mr. Alan, which needed immediate surgical attention. She does not pay any attention to the unclear images of the X-rays done on Mr. Alan’s skull, and as such, fails to notice the skull fracture on his head. From the first examination that she does on Mr. Alan through his X-ray reports on his spine, Dr. Black realizes that Mr. Alan requires immediate surgical attention. Despite this, she fails to send him immediately to the operating theatre so that the surgery can get underway, but rather keeps Mr. Alan at the holding bay of the A & E for a further two hours before he gets to the surgical room. Furthermore, Dr. Black also liable for negligence because she ignored the report brought to her by a student nurse. She rudely brushed her away thinking she was soliciting marks for a better report in her attachment at the A & e department of the hospital. This student nurse was able to investigate the report on skull X-ray of Mr. Alan where she identified a skull fracture. This fracture led to a brain haemorrhage on the patient while on the operation table, which eventually led to the permanent brain damage of the patient. However, this does not exonerate student Nurse Sarcevic from blame, as she is the fifth defendant in this case. She is guilty of not insisting that the doctor does a recheck on the X-ray images of the patient, or even seeking a second opinion from another doctor about these images, instead of crying and keeping such crucial information to herself. As such, she shares a similar blame with Dr. Black for the brain damage that Mr. Alan suffered because of the unattended skull fracture. The final defendant in this case is the head of the surgical team, Dr. Friedel. Before embarking on any given operation, a surgeon must assess the conditions of the patient and determine if he or she is in a stable condition to undergo a surgery. Through such an examination, Dr. Friedel would be able to realize that Mr. Alan had a skull fracture, which would lead to brain haemorrhage, and as such, the doctor had to attend to the skull injury as well as the spine injury before the operation. However, this was not the case and the surgeon proceeded with the surgery. Mr. Alan ends up suffering convulsions midway through the operation, followed by a subsequent respiratory and cardiac arrest. Even though she tried to stabilize him while at the operation table, Mr. Alan leaves the theatre in a grave condition, and on a ventilator, which subjects him to a comma for five days and a permanent brain damage. Mr. Alan suffered a brain haemorrhage while on the operating table, which is a condition that Dr. Friedel would control if he checked the medical reports of the patient properly before beginning the operation10. Issues Mr. Alan suffered an accident while at his place of work, which worsened to a permanent brain damage when he went to the hospital seeking medical attention. As such, all his complications aroused from the negligence of the involved parties. The sister in law of Mr. Alan can seek legal redress on his behalf by charging all the six defendants in the case with their subsequent levels of negligence. However, the person who bears the most blame, and as such, carries a heightened level of negligence rates, as reckless negligence is Dr. Black. She is the first medical specialist to receive Mr. Alan at the health facility, and as such, shoulders the most responsibility over his deteriorating health condition. Duty requires Dr. Black to give her best to the patients as it is the little moments that count in such situations as the first physician to receive a patient at the A & E department of the hospital. She failed to do a proper examination on Mr. Alan, and this led to the whole of his misfortunes. Her guilty mind is evident through her hiding and destroying the medical files of Mr. Alan when the solicitor came looking for them at the hospital. The failure of Dr. Black to conduct a thorough medical check up on Mr. Alan charges her with an act of negligence in the discharge of her duties, and as such, has to bear the civil consequences resulting from her actions. She would be answerable to the court of law and serve an imprisonment sentence due to the heightened degree of her negligence. In fact, the court of law should even revoke her practicing license as a medical doctor due to the high risk she posses to her patients, evidenced by the grotesque condition of Mr. Alan under her care. The other defendants who would be guilty of civil charges, and as such, serve a sentence in the prison, or undertake some monetary compensations to serve as damages for the injuries caused on Mr. Alan are the five remaining defendants. The hospital and the employer need to compensate Mr. Alan handsomely for the serious damages that they caused him, as well as, changing the course of his life through their negligent acts. If these two bodies were prudent and disciplined in their duties and responsibilities, then Mr. Alan would not be the victim, and there would be no case to answer. However, their negligence led Mr. Alan to suffer severe head injuries, which further worsened at the hospital to a permanent brain damage. They have to compensate Mr. Alan a monetary figure amounting to the level of opportunity cost he suffers due to his new condition. The radiographer, the surgeon, and the student nurse also are answerable to some charges, but not as serious as the three major defendants discussed above are. As such, they will not take a hefty penalty from the law for their acts of negligence since they did not have any intentions in their negligent acts. They are liable for a mistake of facts as they tried to do their best in their respective department without full knowledge of the exact condition of the patient. For instance, the radiographer produced faulty images because of the old machines that he used. The surgeon went ahead with the surgery without checking any further damages on the patient because the patient came in with a recommendation from the doctor in charge for a surgical intervention. The student nurse, on the other hand, tried her best to suggest her interpretations on the findings from the X-ray images only for the Doctor in charge to brush her away. As such, they did not make mistakes knowingly, but did so because of certain conditions that were not within their span of control11. Discussions The answer would be very different if Dr. Black was at the end of a 36-hour shift after the management of the hospital forced her to extend her period on duty by ten hours because of the absence of other staff from the facility due to flu. This would be the defense of Dr. Black as the hospital forced her to work beyond the normal hours. As such, her error in judgment of her diagnosis would be because of the fatigue and tiredness she suffers for working without rest for long hours. In such an event, the hospital would bear full responsibility of the negligence act because it failed to staff its facility adequately thereby putting its patient’s lives at risk. Conclusions and Recommendations The head injury on Mr. Alan was very evident, and as such, it was a requirement for the surgical team to seek the expert opinion of a neurologist before they proceeded with an orthopedic surgery on the patient. Therefore, such an argument by the defense that decision to proceed with the surgery did not fall outside the band of reasonable decision is very wrong. As a judge dealing with this case, I would uphold the case raised by the claimant that a neurologist had to give an opinion over the condition of the patient, especially due to the skull fracture, before the orthopedic surgeons proceeded with their surgery. This is because the skull fracture is what led to the permanent brain damage of the patient12. Therefore, if the neurologist gave his or her opinion before the surgeons began their surgery on the patient, he would not have suffered convulsions and heart attacks while on the operating table due to brain haemorrhage. The surgical team is therefore guilty of the crime of civil negligence for their failure to consult before proceeding with an ill-fated surgery Bibliography Beever Allan, Rediscovering the Law of Negligence (Hart Publishing Limited, 2009) pp.335 Blomsa Jereon, Mens Rea and Defenses in European Criminal Law (Intersentia Uitgevers N.V., 2012) pp. 500 City Law School (London, England), Professional Negligence Litigation in Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010) Pp.98. Hall Jerome, General Principles of Criminal Law (The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005) Pp. 425. Joseph Gregory, Civil RICO: A Definitive Guide (American Bar Association, 2000) Pp. 187. Khan Malcolm and Robson Michelle, Clinical Negligence (Routledge, 2012) Pp. 489. Mulheron Rachel, Medical Negligence: Non-Patient and Third Party Claims (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010) Pp.320 Pillsbury Samuel, Judging Evil: Rethinking the Law of Murder and Manslaughter (NYU Press, 2000) Pp. 147 Read More