Criminal Offences, Criminal Justice and Human Rights - Assignment Example

riminаl Оffеnсеs, Сriminаl Justiсе аnd Нumаn Rights Name Tutor Course Date Offences Committed One of the oldest and most important human rights ever coined is the right to life. Apparently, any human being regardless of race, age, health status, religion or economic status has a right to live. This concept especially pertains to not being killed by another human being using physical means, euthanasia, abortion or even war. In this case, Robert committed the first offence by taking this right away from his victim. In article 6.1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the right of life is recognised as fundamental and is to be protected by the law with no exception of any human being (Joel, 2010). Most countries around the world also have a list of criminal offences punishable by law or religious purposes such as Jihad. Murder is taken as a very serious offence even if it means self defence. In fact, as McConville (2009, 49) states, some countries punish such an offense by death. This shows the severity of such an offense. Taking away the life of another person is considered as murder. Robert may be charged with assault and battery. The first count of assault will be him threatening the companion of the victim to the extent that he ran away. Assault does not imply touching or hitting, just the action of trying to threaten the victim’s companion is enough to be taken as assault. The second count of assault and battery would be what he did to the victim. Furthermore, he inflicted bodily harm to his victim. According to Cherkasskey, Cressey, and Gale (2011, 27), this adds to a count of assault and battery if the girl did not die eventually. According to McConville (2009, 57), this kind of murder charge will be of a second degree and it will be coupled with assault of the victim probably with intent to kill. The fact that Robert was drunk could be overlooked in such a case and this may make his excuses even more difficult. Cherkasskey (2010, 45) explains that all circumstances withheld, murder is looked at as a way of taking away the right to life. Driving under the influence of alcohol is the next offence with which he will be charged with. Alcohol or any drug that depresses the central nervous system seems to impair judgement. This is what could have contributed to him assaulting somebody who he thought was his girl-friend. Such drugs are also known to impair the ability to see clearly and reason quickly. It is however noteworthy that this would be an offence only when the alcohol levels are beyond the legal limit. Therefore, the second offence is driving under the influence of alcohol. Robert will probably be charged with two counts of assault, battery and driving under the influence of alcohol (Thomas, 2007). Actus Reus and Men’s Rea The main principle of criminal offences is aptly generalised that any human being voluntarily committing an offence punishable by penal law is to be subjected to the relevant punishment. Sanders (2010, 79) states that for one to hold liability for a criminal offence, there should be tangible and believable proof of him having committed the said crime. This is one of the principles of criminal liability. On the other hand, there is also the other principle that majorly looks at the state of mind of the one committing an offence. This is known as Men’s Rea. The two concepts are highly related and also very different from each other as we will discuss below. Several things are quite obvious from the above, one being the notion of criminal responsibilities lies with the ability of the prosecution to give evidence of crimes committed. Another thing is that, the offender should commit the offence voluntarily, with a preformed intention and when he is of sound mind. In such a case, Martin (2010, 200) says that criminal offences can be divided into two; the first are called conduct crimes where the actions may or may not lead to danger such as dangerous driving while the others are known as result crimes such as the evidence of a dead body for a charge of murder. In case there is no body, then the wounds that have been inflicted during battery will be the result of the crime. Voluntary and involuntary actions As such, a conduct could be freely willed or involuntary. Cherkasskey, Cressey, and Gale (2011, 209) look at some of the factors that may lead to involuntary actions. One of them is reflex action where an action occurs spontaneously after being triggered by some action, an individual may not have control over this. Automatism may also lead to involuntary action where some external factor may make an individual commit an offence without his knowledge. Physical forces may also lead to involuntary actions especially when one is forced by someone else to behave in a certain manner. In this case, Robert can use the above to give excuses. He could try to make the court see that his actions were really involuntary such that the murder case would be done away with. According to the evidence given, Robert had lost his job, mother and was under the influence of a drug that impaired his judgement. In case he is charged with assault, we can use the Coroners and justice act 2009 section 52 which prompts the court to drop the charges if his ability of judgement was affected by his state of mind. According to Cherkasskey, Cressey and Gale (2011, 300), involuntary actions are not to be punished by law but the offender would in some cases be subjected to medical evaluation. The loosing of a mother and being made redundant could have contributed to the stress Robert was experiencing. He was taking alcohol as a way of releasing his stress by taking the alcohol but this only worked on impairing his judgement further. The eventuality of this is the assault of a girl he thought was his girlfriend. This excuse will only work if his mental state of the time the offence was committed can be ascertained by a medical doctor or psychiatrist. Causation In Actus Reus, it should also be proven that the actions of the offender did actually lead to the consequences. This is known as causation and cannot be used as an excuse during the case hearing. It is very obvious that after assault by Robert, the victim died of injuries sustained. This according to McConville (2009, 98) is enough evidence for causation for purposes of criminal liability. Therefore, Robert could be said to have satisfied the Actus Reus of causation. This is what the prosecution could use as evidence for his causation. There are several principles of causation listed by Cherkasskey, Cressey and Gale (2011, 157). The prosecutor must be able to show that bodily harm was committed in order for there to be criminal liability. In this case, Robert was seen assaulting the girl by an eye witness. In case the victim dies, then the prosecutor has to show the jury that the assault was the cause of death and not any other thing. The defendant’s act has to be operative and substantial (Martin, 2009, 230). Substantial in this case refers to something large such as a large cut on the forehead. Operative in this case means that the result of action or offence was foreseen by the offender. We have already discussed the excuse of mental capability that can be used in such a case. However, as Martin (2009, 400) explains, the thin skull rule of causation puts many defendants at risk. This rule simply explains that a defendant is considered guilty if the conditions made the victim vulnerable. In this case, the victim was vulnerable especially being a female, the partner ran away from her and it was at night. This then means that Robert could be imposed with criminal liability. Voluntary and involuntary actions are majorly dealt with when dealing with causation. It is also noteworthy to mention that regardless of these factors being almost similar, they are looked at as different entities in criminal procedures at the court. Men’s Rea and Diminished Responsibility One necessary element of crime is a guilty mind or Men’s Rea. Both the person and the mind have to be guilty for an offender to be accused of a crime. A guilty mind can be associated with several factors; first, there has to be both direct and oblique intention. This simply means knowing and appreciating one’s actions. Secondly, the fact that the defender knew that his actions were dangerous and yet committed them is to be put into consideration. Thirdly, the offender must have knowingly and purposefully committed the crime. The state of mind is tested using several tests which can also be used as an excuse in the case of Robert. Subjective tests are meant to show that the defendant was of right mind and knowingly or voluntarily committed the crime. Objective tests simply compare what a normal or rational person would have done against one who is insane. A hybrid test is inclusive of both objective and subjective tests. If the tests can prove mental incapacitation, then Robert may escape severe punishments (Neil, 2007). The court can only impose criminal liability if they can prove that Robert did his actions knowing the consequences and was able to appreciate the same. It should however be noted that Robert was under the influence of alcohol and stress which are some of the factors that could have contributed to his committing a crime. As Martin (2009, 231) explains, criminal negligence happens where there is no intent to commit a crime or the defendant could not foresee the results of the offence. The mental state of the offender during and after committing a crime is usually put into consideration as this is one of the factors that could lead to involuntary actions. Apparently, any human being is looked at as having the capacity to control their emotions and conducts (Sanders, 2010, 109). However, insanity and certain medical conditions could lead to irrational judgements and inability to exercise self control. This is clearly stated in Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 section 52. Such people are not legally held responsible for their actions as they are not able to appreciate and control their actions neither can they be said to have acted voluntarily or by free will. Punishing them would be unfair and unjust and this is what Cherkasskey, Cressey and Gale (2011, 234) refer to as the insanity defence. This could be used effectively for Robert’s case. However, this could pose a problem as Sanders (2010, 198) explains that the acknowledgement of such would require the understanding that punishment is only given where blame is imposed. This means that there should be accountability and autonomy of the sane as well as empathy for the insane. These two complementary concerns can be used to differentiate the treatment between the two types of people or rather offenders. Men’s Rea is generally looked at as ‘the state of mind’ or ‘a collection of different states of mind required when imposing Men’s Rea criminal liability to an individual. McConville (2009, 243) further state that Men’s Rea can appear in two forms; the special sense that refers to an offense likely to produce arm and the second one known as general sense usually meant to refer to legal responsibility. Factors such as personality, maturity and temperament deficiencies are considered in the legal responsibility. Thus is treated as a two dichotomous event (Catherine & Frances, 2008). Robert’s state of mind when committing this crime could be described as insane. He was definitely not in a position to behave rationally or control his own actions. He was not acting of his own free will and could not control his emotions. On clear evidence of this is his inability to differentiate a girl friend he was very close to that he could go to an extent of fighting for her. This further shows the seriousness and love which Robert had for his girlfriend. He had lost very important things and people in his life that his actions were more of a reflex action to protect him-self from more harm. Alcohol and stress could have also contributed to his inability to act rationally. Robert’s state of mind will have to be confirmed by a medical doctor after thorough medical examination. The level of alcohol in the blood, being made redundant together with losing a mother will also be used to determine his state of mind during the crime. The result of this as Martin (2010, 107) states will be his being acquitted to a mental health facility for a period of time the court finds appropriate. He might also be confined for a certain period of time but a shorter time compared to a sane person accused of the same crime. Diminished responsibility is also another excuse that could potentially secure Robert freedom. As Cherkasskey, Cressey and Gale (2011, 209) state, the defendant argues using his state of mind for his actions. In most cases, the defendant tries to give or show evidence that his judgement was diminished or impaired to an extent of making him not behave or act in the required manner. For anyone to be acquitted of murder there should be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had the intention to kill. The term responsibility in this case deals with the question of being liable to punishment. Implicit in this type of responsibility includes rational thinking, acting voluntarily and appreciating the consequences of an action (Sanders & Kelly, 2010, 167). The result of appreciating one’s actions is guilt without which the offense is not blameworthy. Looking at the case of Robert, guilt was absent; he assaulted a stranger and left her ‘without any signs of life’. This was not just inhuman but it is a clear evidence of him not appreciating the consequences of his actions. The pertinent question still remains; did he know he was doing such an act? Was he remorseful afterwards? Did he feel any guilt? Did he know he hurt her? He simply entered the car and drove off leaving the girl for dead. This will however not set him free without punishment; Robert will be or might be accused of general malice. Diminished responsibility would act in a way to help Robert evade capital punishment. Insanity and diminished responsibility are quite different in law despite seeming to have more than one similarity. With diminished responsibility, part of the blame will be done away with while in insanity, the defendant has to show that he was fully unable to appreciate his actions. Martin (2010, 201) explains that the answer to such questions can give a clear picture of what Robert was experiencing. Whether or not he was experiencing diminished responsibility can be seen in the way with which the offence was committed. If he was in his senses, he could not have continued assaulting the girl to the extent of almost killing her. He would also not have left the body lying where it was. If he had the intent to kill, he would have done it in secret and hid the body. He would have made sure that there were no witnesses. The issue of diminished responsibility can be argued from this point of view. Insanity, Men’s Rea and diminished responsibility are three different things that could successfully be used in a court of law by Robert as an excuse to his case. In as much as the three factors seem similar, they are quite different especially with the sentences that follow them. However, if Robert can be able to convince the jury of any or more of the above states of mind when committing the offence, then he may escape capital punishment. Non- fatal offences According to martin (2010, 134), such offences are those that may not lead to the death of another person but suffers injuries such as cuts, bruises and generally grievous bodily harm. If severe bodily harm was inflicted on a victim, then by law, this makes the defendant more culpable for his actions. One right that is foregone in such a case is the right to bodily integrity. The European convention of human rights states that this right is violated only by touching. In case any harm is inflicted, then the right to liberty has been interfered with. In Robert’s case, both rights were interfered with. In fact, using the above, pleading insanity and diminished responsibility will not be applied as we are told that the victim is left without any signs of life. This then means that severe bodily harm was done to the victim and as Sanders (2010, 290) explains, this falls under assault and battery. The victims’ companion ran for his life probably because Robert wanted to assault him. This is charged under assault without battery. However, since Robert beat up the girl, he will be charged with assault and battery. As Slapper and Kelly (2009, 236) explain, Robert may be unable to plead insanity or diminished responsibility because according to non-fatal offences law, he caused severe bodily harm that can only be done when one has an intention to kill. The prosecution will argue that Robert waited until he could see no signs of life on the victim before leaving. Furthermore, the same author states that intent to kill is evident when the offender moves away from the scene of crime. McConville (2009, 270) goes ahead and says that the only way with which diminished responsibility would play part here is when one shows no signs of removing evidence from the scene of crime. Accordingly, the defendant can argue his point by explaining that he could have ensured that the girl was dead by using any weapon such as the bottle he was drinking from. He could have tried o remove evidence from the scene of crime which he did not. His judgement was too impaired for him to think of taking the girl to hospital. It obviously took him a few minutes to assault the girl to that extent. If he was in his right mind, he would have recognised her even if by voice or physically. Robert was unable to do all the above and as such placing criminal responsibility on him would be unjust. Intoxication Slapper and Kelly (2010, 239) say that intoxication is only used as a defence for those offences which do not include grievous bodily harm. Apparently, the court does consider the level of intoxication in determining whether there was intent. Several issues are taken into account; did the defendant get drunk before so as to commit the crime or is the action spontaneous? For Robert, this excuse may not be taken into consideration due to the harm inflicted to the victim. Martin (2010, 290) explains that the results of intoxication could be used as an excuse. In this case, intoxication led to mistaken identity in which the defendant was trying to protect something he viewed as his property. Basically, this could be considered as protection of property. His level of intoxication led to mistaken identity and he had no previous or foreseen intentions to commit the crime. The intoxication is involuntary and was mainly meant to get rid of stress. It is however very clear that Robert will be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. This would lead to the endangering of other people’s lives including the motorists and pedestrians. Such an offence is punishable by law and the Actus Reus that would lead to causation can be used in this case. Usually, the offence is never taken too seriously unless another persons’ right to life is put at risk. In Robert’s case, his intoxication led to causation which led to the assault of the victim (Joycelyn, 2012). Freedom of speech Another right of human beings is the right to communicate and express one’s ideas found under article nineteen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there are limitations to this right including slander and use of obscenities (Slapper & Kelly, 2010, 198). However, the same authors explain the repercussions of such a right because one is held responsible for what they say. They further explain that this right is highly related to the right for a fair trial in court. Before the defendant is taken to court, he may undergo a few oral interviews with the police or prosecutor. In the process, he may admit to something and this can be used as evidence in a court of law. This kind of admission is more likely to be applied during subjective tests (Cherkasskey, Cressey, J and Gale, 2011, 187). In his state of mind at the time of arrest, Robert could say that any admissions at such times were baseless as he was not in his right mind. He definitely lacked the right mental capacity to make any admissions that could be used in a court of law. Right to Private Life Everyone has a right to live their life without interference from anyone. Everyone has the paramount responsibility to respect the lives of other people (Cherkasskey, L, Cressey, J and Gale, C. 2011.. This is inclusive of the right to choose life partners, dressing and lifestyle. This right will only be taken away when one is a suspect for a crime and the police have to go through your private belongings or property. In some cases, it would be done to protect the economy, national security or protect the rights and freedom of other people (Alston, 2009, 123). In this case, Robert took this right away from the victim by trying to control the choice of partners. Even if it was his girlfriend, everyone has a chance to choose whoever he or she wants as a partner. Taking this right away from any human being is an offence punishable by law (Smith, 2010 276). Eye Witness Evidence Robert was arrested after reports from an eye witness. This has however been the greatest contributor to wrongful conviction (McConville, 2009, 57). The same author states that wrongful conviction is due to factors such as inability to identify the perpetrator in a line up. Someone may easily see what he wants to see probably due to pressure from the police. Relative judgement is where an eye witness easily chooses a look alike of the offender. In fact as Cherkasskey, Cressey and Gale (2011, 201) explain, identifying one individual from a group of photos or people can impair one’s judgement especially if that would be the first time meeting the offender in close quarters. In case the eyewitness was seeing Robert for the first time since the offence, it is possible that relative judgement could have been present. Many countries subject the eye witness to a set of procedures before really confirming he is the offender. Martin (2009, 287) looks at some of these procedures and how effective they are. In case an offender is identified in a line up, a photo of him is taken and the eye witness is asked to identify the same person from a group of photos again. The mental state of the eye witness is also taken into consideration before his testifying in a court of law. Factors such as any medical conditions that could impair judgement influence of drugs and even his positioning during the crime (David & James, 2011). References Alston, P. 2009. International Human Rights In Context. New York: Oxford University Press Catherine E, Frances, Q.2008. Criminal Law. London, Pearson Longman. Cherkasskey, L, Cressey, J and Gale, C. 2011. Legal Skills. New York: Plagrave McMillan Publishers. ISBN 9780230230088 Cherkasskey, L. 2012. Course Notes: Criminal Law. New York: Hodder Education David. B, James, A. 2011. Criminal Law. London. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Joel, S. 2010. Criminal Law. California, Cengage Learning. Joycelyn M. P. 2012. Criminal Law.New York. Newnes. Martin, J. 2010. Unlocking Criminal Law, 3rd Ed. New York: Hodder Education McConville, M. 2009. Research Methods for Law. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press Neil C. B. 2007. criminal law. Newcastle, Aspen Publishers. Sanders, A. 2010. Criminal Justice, 4th Ed. London: Oxford University Press Slapper, G and Kelly, D. 2010. The English Legal System. London: Routledge Publishers Smith, R. 2010. Texts and materials in international human rights. London: Routledge publishers Thomas J. G, Terry M. A. 2008. Criminal Law. California, Cengage Learning. Read More