Discussing Offenses Committed by Arnold and Dan - Case Study Example

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW: DISCUSSING OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ARNOLD AND DAN Criminal Law The through a prosecutor initiates a suit in a criminal case. Any person who is proved beyond reasonable doubts to be guilty in a criminal case are fined, incarcerated or both. This paper discuss the criminal proceedings taken against Arnold and Dan in a case whereby Arnold who was a member of an anti-capitalist organisation committed to the violent overthrow of society threw a bomb in a busy station while Dan an ambulance worker neglected his duty of rescuing Carl because it was time to go off duty. Both Arnold and Dan have criminal cases which are enforceable in law through the prosecutor who sue them on behalf of the state. A substantive criminal is enforced as the criminal procedure is composed of rules governing the series of proceedings. During the court proceedings of both cases, the criminal procedures should balance the state's interest and the defendant's right as they are designed to ensure that defendant's rights are protected. This will ensure that there is an efficient trial which is aimed to bring across justice. Criminal Law Criminal law deals with crimes and the legal punishments of criminal offences under the body of statutory and common law. A peaceful social order and justice is achieved in the society by imposing sanction of the crime. Criminal justice is governed by four theories namely: punishment, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. 1 A crime is an act of default or conduct prejudicial to the community, the commission of which by law renders the person responsible liable to be prosecuted and eventually punishing the guilty person accordingly. The prosecutor has a duty of bring the charges against the accused person and prove establish his guilty beyond any reasonable doubts. The prosecution for crime is conduct in the name of the state and the case is styled as - State versus name of the accused. (Van de Haag, 1978) Whereas civil law deals with the relationship between an individual and their rights and obligations under the law, criminal law is a system of regulating the behaviours of persons in relation to societal norms. A criminal proceeding commences with an alleged crime whereby an accusation is made by the compliant and the police being the government agent investigates the matter. During the proceedings, the interest of the government is represented by the prosecuting attorney or prosecutor while those of the defendant are represented by his defence attorney or by himself. 2 An exact circumstance that comprises a crime is supposed to be spelt out by the criminal statute in what is known as the element of the offence. The defendant cannot be proved to be guilty of the offence unless the prosecuting authority proves the elements of the offence spelt out in the criminal statute. Three elements of the offence are: the act itself, the actus reus, guilty act; the requisite mental state, the mens rea, guilty mind; and the attendant circumstances. (Fletcher, 1998) For our case, Arnold who was a member of an anti-capitalist organisation committed to the violent overthrow of society is a criminal offence when he released a toxic gas into the underground rail system of a city. This is a public nuisance which is actionable at the suit of the prosecutor on behalf of the public. A public nuisance can be defined as an act which interferes with the enjoyment of a right whereby all member of the society are entitled to for example right to fresh air or travel on the highway or rail. (Langhan, 1999) Arnold endangered the life of passengers using the railway system with the toxic case hence he should be prosecuted for public nuisance. The remedies in nuisance are damages, injunction and abatement. Damages This is an ordinary common law remedy whereby the damages claimed are un-liquidated as the court has power to fix them. Injunction This is an equitable remedy which is granted at the discretion of the court circumstances that the injury to the property is of a permanent nature. The remedy of injunction may be granted in addition to damages or lieu of damages. Abatement This is whereby a person is entitled to remove the nuisance himself without having prior recourse to the courts. But taking such an action, one is under duty to give a reasonable notice to the person concerned that he intends to put to an end the cause of the nuisance himself. (Langhan, 1999) It is immaterial that Arnold had severe depression that was never treated which could have caused such an incident of releasing a toxic gas that endangered the life of the public killing Bill and injuring Carl. The mere fact that Arnold was a member of an anti-capitalist organisation committed to the violent overthrow of society is a clear revelation that he had a sober mind when he did the act of releasing the toxic gas to the railway system. The state has an obligation of bring to charge the individuals in criminal case and also protecting the innocent citizens whose rights have been violated through acts such as Murder, Manslaughter, arson, burglary, forgery and many others. On behalf of the public, the state through the public prosecutor is supposed to sue Arnold for this act of public nuisance for the fact he released the toxic gas that was harmful to human beings when inhaled. On the other hand, Carl a passenger who was also injured during the release of the toxic gas by Arnold can also sue for private nuisance. Private nuisance unlike public nuisance is whereby an unjustified act is affecting some particular individuals as distinguished from the public at large. 3 Bill, a policeman was killed after inhaling the toxic gas released by Arnold. For this case, he faces another charge of killing Bill. The policeman was in his course of duty to ensure there was safety at the railway system when he was killed. The state through the public prosecutor is supposed to bring charges against Arnold for causing the death of Bill. Even though both Bill and Carl were died during the incident, the state through its public prosecutor should bring charges against Arnold for causing the deaths of two and also for releasing a toxic gas and he knew very well that the toxic gas was harmful to the health of human beings. Dan, the ambulance worker on the other hand committed an offence of neglecting his duty as a rescuer. He ran away instead of saving the life of Carl who had been injured by the toxic gas. Even though it was time to go off duty, this was not justifiable to leave an injured person unattended. As a general rule, the burden of proving negligence normally lies on the party alleging it, but the court do not insist on the plaintiff to prove where an accident happens which in the normal course of things would have taken place if the defendant was not negligible. The plaintiff could argue in such a situation that the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies, i.e. the things speaks for itself and then the burden lies on the defendant to rebut the presumption of negligence by showing that the accident might still have occurred without his negligence on his part. For this case, before the rule of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked, there conditions must be met: That there must be reasonable evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. That the operations under the control of the defendant when the accident took place. That the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the duty used proper care. For this case, it is immaterial that Dan the ambulance worker was off duty hence could not save the life of Carl. He had duty of care to the saving of the life of Carl and was it not for his negligence; he would have saved the life his life. Even though Carl was rescued much later and refused to take blood transfusion hence he had difficult in breathing and later on cut himself with a knife killing himself, the state can bring charges against Dan for negligence. Reference Fletcher, G. P. (1998): Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press Gross, H. (2005): A Theory of Criminal Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press Langhan, A. S, (1999), Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 12th Edition, New Delhi, Gopas Publishers Murphy, J. et al. (1990): Forgiveness and Mercy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Smith, K.J.M (1998): Lawyers, Legislators and Theorists: Developments in English Criminal Jurisprudence, 1800-1957, Oxford, Clarendon Press Van den Haag, E. (1978): Punishing Criminals: Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question, New York, Basic Books Ltd. Read More