The reason for the murder - Essay Example

? Running Head: RESEARCH PROJECT Unit 9 Research Project This study is conducted in an attempt to stop the current trend of acquitting spouses who conspire to inherit estates of their victims. Close relations of murder victims are highly affected by the death of their loved ones. In some cases it is the spouse who kills their partner with the motive to inherit their wealth. Individuals who kill their spouse shouldn’t be able to collect their estate upon release although they were technically found not guilty. It is stated in the research that being found not guilty by reason of mental defect does not mean the person didn't actually kill their spouse. This trend should be curtailed through effective legal channels. The theoretical framework identifies a research direction that highlights some basic dimensions forming up testable hypothesis. The study would state its effect on the overall discipline of the employees, such as attendance. The research would collect data through questionnaires for analysis. The study also complies with ethical standards where it is conducted objectively, and where necessary, protecting the identities of those concerned. Introduction Across the world, there are rising cases of murder. An emerging trend in this respect involves the slaughter of victims with the sole intention of inheriting or somehow benefiting from their estate(s). It is common for the murderers and victims in such cases to be in close or distant relations. Whenever a murderer is arrested and charged for murder with the intention of benefitting from the deceased’s estate, the common defense applied is insanity or mental incompetence. In some cases courts establish on technical grounds that the murderers are not guilty to the delight of the latter. The murderers in this respect retain the rights to enjoy the wealth of their victims with almost no regret. However, it may be argued that this should never be the case because murderers are guilty irrespective of legal technicalities that could arise in the course of judicial proceedings. Very little study is available regarding the murderers benefiting from their victims’ properties. It is this gap that the current study seeks to fulfill. Hypotheses H0: Murderers killing their victims with the intention of benefiting from victims’ estates should not hold the right to partake of such properties. H1: Murderers killing their victims with the intention of benefiting from victims’ estates should not hold the right to partake of such properties. Specific objectives 1. To establish the prevalence of murder cases for the purposes of inheriting victims’ properties/estates 2. To establish the motives/intentions behind such murders 3. To establish the defenses applied in such murder cases 4. To establish reasons that warrant or warrant not murderers to benefit from their victims’ estates. Background and Literature Review Defenses to crime generally admit insanity as sufficient grounds to relieve the defendant of criminal responsibility in many cases in which it is applied by the defense. The court systems have generated insanity tests to determine if there is criminal responsibility by the defendant. Three of these tests have been in use for a considerable period, and they are the “M’Naghten”, irresistible impulse, and substantial capacity tests. The M’Naghten test measures the defendant’s cognitive abilities and the possibility that such abilities could or could not enable making the right decision in terms of the crime. Irresistible impulse test relies on willingness to commit crime irrespective of cognition and any chance that a severe disease caused certain mental incapacitation on the defendant’s decision making. Substantive capacity test relies on the threshold of mental incapacitation that need not be total incapacitation at the time the crime was committed (O’Connor, 2010). These crime liability tests are a tool to determine the state of mind of the defendant and are arguably not conclusive for failure to detect the possibility of motivation to commit crimes from a beneficial perspective. Research on the shift of burden of crime responsibility shows that benefiting from a crime should change the analysis of tests such as those highlighted above. Mental illness research in advanced insanity defense makes recommendations explaining that the presence of a mental condition on the defendant should not impede criminal responsibility. Based on the assumption that mental illness opens a window of opportunity for the defense team to take advantage of the apparent defense thereon, fairness dictates that in order to handle such defendants, special consideration must be taken to that affect. Fairness, however; does not imply that the victims of the crime become automatic losers in that case. To make a judgment based on the fairness threshold must therefore determine if the mentally ill defendant benefitted from the crime. In such a benefit analysis, findings should add weight to the results of the other tests to facilitate fairness to the crime victims who stand to lose where mental illness is a sufficient defense without benefit considerations. Cases in which the defendant benefited from the commission of a crime, the application of mental illness as a sufficient defense will amount to the contradiction to the intentions of justice in various respects. Despite that mental illness defies deterrence and retribution application of law, the infusion of certain benefits for the defendant from the crime may dilute this concept in law that considers justice and equity. In terms of the compromise in which deterrence is involved, justice is better not served. This is so, because there is a chance of occurrence in similar crimes and is a significant likelihood as motivated by benefit. Retribution by the victim will not be achieved based on the fairness criteria that consider both the offender and the offended (Brodsky & Bursztajn, 1991). It is sometimes difficult to demonstrate the standards of proof in defense of a mental case, which complicates the reliability of the defense. In many cases, accurately demonstrating the requirements of basic proof in mental illness as a defense may not be directly possible and practical. It is almost certainly a requirement that medical intervention is sought for the translation of the mental status of a defendant to demonstrate the technical medical nexus that the defense has in seeking a remedy. However, it is not necessarily complex to enumerate the benefit that the defendant could be obtaining at the expense of the victim. But these complexities exist in the demonstration prepared by the defense, there is little effort needed to illustrate the possibility of benefit as a motivation of the mentally ill defendant partaking in a crime. The most affected element of legal application in the determination of the motivation may however not be as elaborate as it sounds because the principle of free will may obscure such a consideration (Trowbridge, 2005). Such a consideration is found in the cost-benefit analysis that employs the premise that a defense on the mens rea rule is to be conducted on the basis of avoidance marginal cost against commission marginal cost. The determination of the criminal responsibility based on this cost balance analysis should be insightful enough to detect any shift in benefit for the defendant for use in exoneration or implication (Candeub, 2009). The benefit analysis is therefore used to determine the possibility that the mentally ill defendant could have contributed to the issue of criminal liability that affects the victims, from the point of view that the illness is not a defense on its own. Research Design To conduct the study, both primary, and secondary data is used. To obtain secondary data, a literature review is performed to gain an insight into the nature of the problem. The study mainly relies on reliable secondary sources, including newspapers, books, court cases, journals, and websites to establish the extent to which murders are committed for the purposes of inheritance in the society. Primary data is mainly used in this research because the subject has not been studied before. This means that very limited literature in respect of the same is available. Primary data is collected through questionnaires posted to a sample of victims’ close relatives. The questionnaires seek to establish the relevance or irrelevance of rewarding murderers with their victims’ properties. Owing to the global nature of the problem, the research is limited to xxx state of the United States of America. The study also complies with ethical standards where it is conducted objectively, where necessary protecting the identities of those concerned. The sources from which data is collected is credited appropriately and permissions for duplication of materials sought where necessary. Murder and Collection of Estate as Beneficiary Murder in the simplest of terms involves the illegal killing of another person with malicious intentions. The death of human beings as a result of murder causes a great deal of grief to those who are close to the victim. Of course, the commission of murder significantly affects the orderliness of society grossly and cannot be ignored. As such, murderers face conviction and one of the heaviest sentences in most jurisdictions, life in prison, and the death penalty uncommonly. Despite these facts, there seems to be a rise in murder cases across the world, various motivations being at play in this respect. In a society that craves wealth and fame, it is not uncommon for criminals to kill or conspire to murder others for their (the criminals’) benefit. One form of crime, which is gaining ground in many jurisdictions, involves the murder of wealthy persons by their partners, offspring or heirs to be with the intention of benefitting from the deceased’s estate(s). In other words, the crime involves mainly relatives (close or distant), or a spouse or former spouses with an interest for inheriting the victim’s wealth. Those technically found not guilty on the ground of mental incapacity should not benefit from the deceased’s estate because granting them such a right is as good as rewarding a guilty mind. With very little study present regarding this subject, an explanatory study is done in the following sections. Murder Cases Involving the Death of Loved ones and Inheritance of Estates Several cases of persons murdering their “loved ones” or spouses with the aim of inheriting their properties or estates are present on public media and commonly grace the courtroom. One such case involved Sharon Collins and Essam Eid. In this case, the prosecution stated that the two conspired to kill one PJ Horward, Sharon’s former lover (Belfast Telegraph, 2008). Awoman, then hired Essam to kill Howard and two of his sons for a fee of 90,000 dollars (Belfast Telegraph, 2008). The woman was concerned about the inheritance of Horward’s property to an extent that she obtained a proxy marriage certificate even though she was not legally married to the victim. Her motivation in this respect was to gain claim of the victim’s estate after the death of the victims and his two sons (Belfast Telegraph, 2008). Another case reviewed relates to the murder of Smith by Troy A. Purdie. Taylor Marks admitted to have orchestrated the death of the victim, her mother with the intention of inheriting her wealth (Estate of Denial, 2011). She hired Purdie to commit the murder of the woman who loved and cared for her (Estate of Denial, 2011). This case greatly bears a huge amount of semblance to the previous case; in both cases, the inheritance of money being the core motivation of these crimes. It is worth noting that both cases involve individuals orchestrating the death of their loved ones to inherit the remaining estate. These are the only two cases which confirm what is becoming prevalent in the modern day society. In both cases, the deference cited a state of mental incapacity or mental unsoundness as cause for their action. Defense to Murder Cases on Grounds of Mental Incapacity In many cases, mental incapacity in defense to murder cases involves the murderer seeking to benefit from the deceased’s estate as exemplified above. According to Finkel (2001), an individual found to have committed an act of unsound mind is not guilty of the offense. Despite the case being admissible in a court of law, an insane person, as established by a psychiatrist, is not guilty of an offense (Finkel, 2001). In some cases, the murderer enjoys the right to benefit from the estate of their victim after being found not guilty on technical grounds. In spite of the “not guilty” ruling pronounced by a court in such a case, it remains a fact that the murderer has a guilty mind, legal technicalities notwithstanding. This is especially the case if the court in reality establishes that there was intent to kill so as to benefit from the victim’s property. The murder of a person causes gross psychological suffering to relatives and friends of the murder victim. The family of the victim suffers grave loss and a great deal of psychological distress or even trauma when the murderer is acquitted of the murder simply because of legal technicalities. The damage is even worse if the murderer has a chance to benefit from their victim’s estate. Such a case makes it seem like the law conspires with the murderer to achieve evil and illegal goals. This is a pathetic situation that should never come because it presents a paradoxical case in which the law engages in doing what it is meant to undo. In such an event, the family, and friends believe that the law is unjust by favoring the murderer. What this means is that courts should consider the substance of murder cases and overlook the technicalities involved in establishing whether or not murderers should enjoy their victims’ estates in view of legal ethics. If this is the case, it generally would be that murderers should not be able to enjoy the benefits of their evil intentions. Sampling Population size These are the potential respondents who can be involved in the later stage of the research. The research is limited to xxx state of the United States of America. This state contains the total population size of the research and therefore, holds the major respondents for the research. The population of the xxx state of the United States of America is a combination of various ages, gender, cadre and religion. The reason why the above mentioned will be a part of the population is because they represent the overall respondents for the research (Bartlet, Kotrlik & Higgins, 2001). Sample Size and technique The sample size chosen for the research is a total of 50 respondents of the xxx state of the United States of America. In order to reduce the chances of sampling error, the study uses stratified sampling. The research first documented the stratum which is a smaller part of the population. The stratum in this case is a sample of close relatives of the victims. Then, random sampling was used to select the subjects for the research. Therefore, precise information regarding the study is collected because precision about the variables of the entire population can be easily raised. Of course, it is sometimes hard to form strata from the population; it must be kept in mind that stratified sampling presents better results than the random sampling in almost every case (Barreiro &Albandoz, 2001). During the research, the data was gathered in such a way that managed to capture the needed information. The evaluation phase of the data also managed to confirm the validity concerns of the methodology as it effectively measured what it aimed to determine. As the answers to the questions are not doubted, it is obvious that the results will not be questioned as well. Hence the validity is greatly enhanced. It is also expected that the acquired results would be the same if the same study was conducted with the same number of different sample. A study’s main concern is always to ensure validity and reliability and this research also aims to achieve the same. Data Collection Techniques In order to collect the primary data necessary for the research, surveys are used. These would be standardized in nature and would thus enable effective collection of data. Existing data is also tapped by the research and is collected through published sources. Research Considerations The research will be facing the following restrictive weaknesses while its execution: Lack of prior research studies on the organization: Primary data is mainly used in this research because the subject has not been studied before. This means that very limited literature in respect of the same is available. Access: The study depends on having access to people, and information necessary for conducting the study. Although there is little chance of having the access completely denied, there are chances of it being somewhat limited (Joan & Fisher 2005) Respondent Bias: Chance that the research to be conducted might face a respondent bias and it always exists. Where, the respondent might fill the questionnaires in a biased manner Other than the weaknesses, it is worth noting that the self-administered surveys used in the study acted as a major tool for cost effectiveness because they are inexpensive and can be easily administered from a distant setting. The respective method is thus very useful when a sample as large as this research is present as a general capability, along with statistical significance of the results is apparent. The use of secondary and primary data altogether managed to reduce the subjectivity of the observer with a high amount of reliability as well.  As for the ethical considerations, it would be made sure that the principle of voluntary participation, informed consent, risk of harm and the participants’ confidentiality (Wiles et al. 2008) will be taken into account. It will also be made sure that the study is conducted objectively, where necessary protection of identities of the concerned are also affirmed. Other than the previously stated, strict standards of anonymity are also obeyed (Fritz, 2008). References Barreiro.P.L, Albandoz. J.P. (2001), Population and sample. Sampling techniques, MaMaEuSch, Management Mathematics for European Schools, University of Sevill, p (4). Bartlet E.J, Kotrlik W.J, and Higgins. C.C, (2001) Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, p (6; 19) Belfast Telegraph (2008) Conspiracy to murder trial told of alleged scam to inherit estate. Retrieved 13th January, 2011 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ukandireland/conspiracy-to-murder-trial-told-of-alleged-scam-to-inherit-estate-13879831.html Brodsky, A. & Bursztajn, H. (1991) “Competence and Insanity,” The Mental Health Professional and the Legal System, 131:181-186 Candeub, A. (2009) An Economic Theory of Criminal Excuse, Boston College Law Review, 50(1):87-137 Durand & Barlow. (2007). Essentials of Abnormal Psychology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing. Estate of Denial (2011) Trial delayed in alleged inheritance-motivated murder-for-hire case. http://www.estateofdenial.com/2011/01/12/trial-delayed-in-alleged-inheritance-motivated-murder-for-hire-case/ Finkel N. (2001). Commonsense justice: jurors' notions of the law, Harvard University. USA. Fritz.K, (2008) Ethical Issues in Qualitative research, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Department of International Health, p (13). Joan C. and Fisher E.K (2005) How Libraries and Librarians Help: A Guide to Identifying UserCentered Outcome, Chicago: American Library Association. Maxfield, M. & Babbie, E. (2009). Basics of Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. O’Connor, T. (2010) “Defenses to Crime” Retrieved 3 January, 2012 http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3010/3010lect04.htm Trowbridge, B. (2005), Waiting List and Recent Cases Give Advantages to Defendants Court-Ordered for State Hospital Evaluations, Washington Criminal Defense, 19(2): 1-15 Wiles.R, Prosser.J, Bagnoli.A, Clark.A, Davies.K, Holland.S, and Renold.E, (October, 2008) Visual Ethics: Ethical Issues in Visual Research, National Centre for Research Methods, p (21) Appendix Survey Questionnaire Section 1 Personal Information (for the purpose of gauging demographics only) Participant Number ___ Gender Age Location Telephone number Section 2 Respond YES or NO 1. Have you had any experience with murder relating to estate inheritance in the past? Yes/No 2. Do you believe spouses acquitted of murder on the grounds of mental incapacity should be allowed to inherit their victims' estate? Yes/No 3. Do you think spouses who murder their partners have compassion for their victims? Yes/No 4. Motivation behind the murder is the turning point in cases involving spouse. Do you agree? Yes/No Choose ONE only 5. Which of the following should be changed in order to curtail the current trend of spouse release and inheritance of estate of the deceased? a. Investigation department b. Property Law c. Homicide law d. Social Policies e. None of the above 6. In litigations concerning spouse related murder, you believe spouses get acquitted for their crimes because of: a. Technical jeopardy b. Mental incapacity c. Established facts and investigations d. Poor litigation process e. None of the above 7. How should the crime be re-evaluated and awarded? a. Authenticity of marriage b. Established murderer's motive c. Rights of the surviving spouse d. Property documentations e. All of the above 8. Motivation behind the murder can be determined by: a. History of the relationship b. Murder in defense c. Murder out of malice d. Manslaughter e. Some other reason ______ 9. What other considerations should be included with mental incapacity as reason for releasing murder criminals? a. Marriage and lifestyle b. Motivation behind the act c. People involved in the crime d. Mental capacity before and during the marriage e. None of the above 10. Who do you think is responsible for this prevalent trend in spouse murder and estate inheritance? Read More