Should The Homicide Law Be Reformed - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2066 Downloads: 7 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Argumentative essay Level High school Did you like this example? Homicide law should be reformed as it is inappropriate for someone to be held liable for murder if they did not intend to kill. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Date authored: 23 rd August, 2014. Homicide is the collective term for both murder and manslaughter in England and Wales. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Should The Homicide Law Be Reformed" essay for you Create order Murder is a common law offence that has developed through the courts over time. The common definition of murder comes from Edward Coke who wrote, murder occurs when a person of sound body and mind unlawfully kills any human being under the Queens peace with malice aforethought. [1] This definition lays out both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence. The actus reus is uncontroversial: the killing of any human being during the Queens peace. This makes murder a result crime; liability flows from an action (or omission) of the defendant resulting in death. Controversy and academic debate surrounds the second part of the offence, namely the mens rea element. Malice aforethought has been interpreted by the courts as meaning with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. It is this second interpretation of malice aforethought that brings the debate. It means a person can be convicted of the legal systems ultimate, heinous crime despite a lack of intention to kill. Lord Steyn expressed the problem eloquently in R v Powell; â€Å"in English law, a defendant may be convicted of murder who is in no ordinary sense a murderer.† [2] The proponents of change base their arguments around fair labelling, mandatory sentencing, interpretation of the current law and the contradictory results of as is. Debate only follows where there are two points of view, and despite the pitfalls of the current law on murder, there are proponents of the current system. The arguments for the current system revolve around the sanctity of life, difficulty of overcoming the evidential burden, a deterrent approach and a view of social responsibility. These differing viewpoints will be explored below in more detail. One of the major complaints about the current law is based on the idea of fair labelling. In our society it is seen as unjust to label someone inaccurately, especially when that label is one of murderer. Glanville Williams wrote, â€Å"the particulars state d in the conviction should convey the degree of the offenders moral guilt, or at least should not be positively misleading as to that guilt†¦ In any case, a man may feel a sense of injustice if the terms of the conviction do not represent his real guilt.† [3] To be labelled a murderer without holding the intention to kill would not be representative of the defendants ‘real guilt. Being convicted of murder not only results in a mandatory life sentence, but once, or if, the defendant leaves prison, the label remains. This will impact on that persons life potentially destroying his family, his career and right to a normal life after serving his sentence. Roger highlights the problem of fair labelling, â€Å"present labels of murder and manslaughter are each much too broad and lose their core meaning on account of their breadth. The law of murder at present equates the paedophile who kills his victim to ensure his silence with the man who intends to cause grievo us bodily harm because he is getting carried away in an argument, or perhaps in defending his property.†[4] Society draws a great distinction between the two individual scenarios mentioned by Roger however the label of murderer does not. When this label is present, society tends to overlook the details of the individual circumstances and takes the label on its own. Another major problem with the current law is the mandatory life sentence for murder. Many people would agree the most heinous crime deserves the most severe punishment however, as has been highlighted already, a convicted murderer has not necessarily carried out this heinous act as perceived by society. Currently, judges have no discretion with a murder conviction. Since the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 a conviction of murder carries with it the sentence of life imprisonment[5]. The precise length of the sentence varies under the guidelines derived from Coroners and Justice Act 2009 [6] ho wever this still sets the minimum sentence at 15 years for a defendant over the age of 18. This is to be contrasted with manslaughter for which the judge has absolute discretion on sentencing up to a maximum of life imprisonment. This allows for a judge to mitigate the severity of the crime through the sentence, a mechanism unavailable in murder[7]. Due to a court interpreted definition of murder, a defendant faces a mandatory life sentence instead of a much lower sentence based on the crime he truly had the mens rea for. It is this draconian approach to sentencing that makes someone held to be liable for murder when they did not intend to kill inappropriate. There are practical issues alongside legalistic ones, such as is the definition of grievous bodily harm, or serious bodily harm. If the liability for murder depends on the intention to cause this level of harm, there should be very clear and concise guidelines as to what this level of harm is. William Wilson writes ab out the obscurity of grievous bodily harm, â€Å"it is defined to mean nothing more precise than â€Å"serious† as opposed to â€Å"actual† bodily harm.†[8] This definition and guidance is not robust enough to fairly legitimise a murder charge. Further, to the abstruseness of the level of harm required, allowing grievous bodily harm to lead to a murder charge at all can result in the prosecution and conviction of a person for not only something he did not intend, but actually for something he precisely intended to avoid. There are several famous examples of this undesirable outcome such as that of kneecapping, a practice whereby the knees are targeted to punish the victim but with the precise intention of keeping them alive. Lord Goff entertained this scenario along with another of glassing. Despite the resulting death and clear intention to cause serious bodily harm with a broken glass, the jury â€Å"could not bring themselves to call him a murdererâ⠂¬  and Lord Goff sympathised with them. [9] It is the combination of the above arguments that lead people to cry out for reform of the law of homicide as it is currently inappropriate in regards to a murder charge without the intention to kill. However, there are also proponents of the current law. There is a strong argument for the law to enforce responsibility for ones actions. If one attacks another with the intention to cause them serious bodily harm, and that attack results in the death of victim, then the attacker is morally culpable for the victims death. This is a view endorsed by William Wilson and others, â€Å"I take the uncomplicated view, as the Criminal Law Commissioner has elsewhere argued, that those who intentionally attack others are morally responsible for and so fully legally accountable for the consequences of so doing whether or not such consequences were foreseen.†[10] This view depends on ones idea of the purpose of the criminal law howev er, for the law to hold society responsible for the outcome of their actions is more than acceptable for the majority. The current law also fits with the harm principle whereby, â€Å"the State is justified in criminalizing any conduct that causes harm to others†[11]. This view is compatible with sanctity of life arguments. For many in society, sanctity of life is sovereign, as shown by its inclusion in the European Convention of Human Rights[12]. This granting of the Right to Life necessitates any taking of life to be regulated tightly. This has led to problem areas in the law such as euthanasia and abortion, the laws for which are based on the law of murder. In light of high profiles decisions of the court system in these areas such as Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice [13] the time for change in the homicide area is not now. Parliament refuses to reform the law and neither do the courts. These decisions have been made in light of high volumes of political and legal argument yet the current system has won through. Changing the definition of murder could not only have a negative impact on the law of homicide, but also these other, highly emotive and controversial areas of law. The current law is not only compatible with these controversial areas but has also been affirmed at the highest level. The so called ‘GBH rule was the subject of a House of Lords decision in R v Cunningham [14] in which the rule was affirmed by the House including the then Lord Chancellor. Further, â€Å"the adjective ‘serious has not caused problems in the past, where juries have been instructed in murder cases† [15], and as such does not need to be reformed. This affirmed law is aligned with arguments for the law to act as a deterrent of social harms. The intentional causing of serious bodily harm is without doubt something society wants deterred, and having a severe punishment for this harm, not only in the law of homicide but also through the Offences Against the Person Act 1861[16], is a method of deterrence. Without the inclusion of this element in the law of homicide, not only would the deterrent for serious bodily harm be weaker, but many ‘true murderers would escape conviction for murder, thus creating a fair labelling problem, contradicting one of the arguments put forward by proponents of change. This is because it is very difficult to prove true inten t to kill. There would be many scenarios where the defendant did intend to kill the victim however this couldnt be proved due to the evidential burden. However, by using the intention to cause grievous bodily harm, a number of these defendants could be found guilty of murder. On balance there are strong arguments for homicide law to be left as is to deter violent crimes and make society responsible for their actions. However the law cannot be left simply because other areas of law are based upon them. There are many problems with the law as it is currently, particularly surrounding fair labelling, mandatory sentencing and difficulty of interpretation and implementation. These problems go right to the core of our legal system and cannot continue to go unchanged. The Law Commission has been ignored repeatedly by parliament but their worries remain and proposals could improve the current system. Homicide law should be reformed as it is inappropriate for someone to be held liab le for murder if they did not intend to kill and equality for all under the law must always be the ultimate practice. Bibliography Ashworth A and Horder J, The Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, OUP 2013) 28 Coke E, ‘Institutes 3 Co Inst 47 Ashworth A, ‘Principles, Pragmatism and the Law Commissions Recommendations on homicide law reform [2007] Crim L R 333 Goff R, ‘The mental element in the crime of murder (1988) 104 LQR 30 Wilson W, ‘The structure of criminal homicide [2006] Crim LR 471 Williams G, ‘Convictions and Fair Labelling [1983] CLJ 85 Roger J, ‘The Law Commissions proposed restructuring of homicide (2006) 70(3) J Crim L 223 Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Sentencing Manual (CPS, Jan 2012) https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/murder/ accessed 21 August 2014 R v Powell [1999] 1 AC 1 Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38 R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566 Offences A gainst the Persons Act 1861 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR) art 2 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 [1] 3 Co Inst 47. [2] [1999] 1 AC 1, 14. [3] Glanville Williams, ‘Convictions and Fair Labelling [1983] CLJ 85, 85. [4] Jonathan Roger, ‘The Law Commissions proposed restructuring of homicide (2006) 70(3) J Crim L 223, 226. [5] Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, s1. [6] Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s120. [7] Criminal Justice Act 2003, sch, paras 4-7. For further guidance see, Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Sentencing Manual (CPS, Jan 2012) https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/murder/ accessed 21 August 2014. [8] William Wilson, ‘The structure of criminal homicide [2006] Crim LR 471, 475. [9] Robert Goff, ‘The mental element in the crime of murder (1988) 104 LQR 30, 48. [10] Wilson (n 8) 475. [11] Andrew Ashworth and Jeremy Horder, The Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, OUP 2013) 28. [12] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR) art 2. [13] [2014] UKSC 38. [14] [1982] AC 566. [15] Andrew Ashworth, ‘Principles, Pragmatism and the Law Commissions Recommendations on homicide law reform [2007] Crim L R 333, 335. [16] Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, s18.

A Comparison of Irony in Crime and Punishment and A...

Use of Irony in Crime and Punishment and A Dolls House There are many links between Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky and A Dolls House, by Henrik Isben. Each character goes through many ironic situations. Throughout both of the works dramatic, situational, and verbal irony are used. Dramatic irony is used throughout Crime and Punishment. The reader knows that Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov killed the pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna, and her sister, Lizaveta Ivanovna. A quote to support this is, He took the axe right out, swung it up in both hands, barely conscious of what he was doing, and almost without effort, almost effort, almost mechanically, brought the butt of it down on the old womans head. (Dostoyevsky†¦show more content†¦In A Dolls House the reader is aware that Nora borrowed money from Krogstad without her husbands permission. Nora also forged her fathers name to gain the money. She says, You dont know all. I forged a name. (Isben 44) In the following conversation between Nora and Christine it is clearly stated that Torvald does not know of Noras actions: Mrs. Linde. And since then have you never told your secret to your husband? Nora. Good heavens, no! (Isben 13) Another example of dramatic irony in A Dolls House is when Nora wants to practice a dance called the Tarantella. When Torvald goes to look in the letter box Nora says, Torvald please dont. There is nothing in there. (Isben 46) The reader knows that Nora has not forgotten the dance. The reader knows this when Torvald goes to check the mail and Nora begins to play the Tarantella. Nora then says, I cant dance to-morrow if I dont practise with you. (Isben 46) The reader knows that all Nora is trying to do is keep Torvald from reading the mail which contains a letter from Krogstad. Situational irony is also used throughout the two works. In Crime and Punishment Raskolnikov is the one who murdered the two sisters. It was totally unexpected when Nikolai came to

Aviation Benchmarks Essay Research Paper Aviation BenchmarksThousands free essay sample

Aviation Benchmarks Essay, Research Paper Aviation Benchmarks Thousands of people have contributed to Aviation. Dreams by the Wright Bothers made flight possible for all of us. Others like Emelia Earhardt, and Charles Linburg stretched the bounds to carry through what had neer been done earlier. Many have even given their life to be in the air. I will discourse some of the paramount events and people that helped exceed Aviation. The most appropriate topographic point to get down is on the Seventeenth of December in 1903, the brothers Orville and Wilber Wright flew the first powered aircraft a sum of 120 pess in 12 seconds. Wilber the eldest, and younger brother Orville ever were fascinated by flight. During their childhood, sailplanes and balloons were being used. Painstaking attempts were made by them subsequently in life to make an expeditiously powered trade. They had used aeromechanicss tabular arraies set Forth by Langley to prove their ain sailplanes. We will write a custom essay sample on Aviation Benchmarks Essay Research Paper Aviation BenchmarksThousands or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page They found that the tabular arraies didn # 8217 ; t supply adequate lift to acquire barely anything off the land. So they set out to hammer their ain tabular arraies by expereimenting with two-hundred different flying designs in a home-made air current tunnel. They invalidated Langley # 8217 ; s aeromechanicss tabular arraies. From there with the aid of mechanic Charles Taylor, they were able to plan an engine visible radiation and yet powerful plenty to propell a little trade. The powerplant on the # 8220 ; Flyer 1 # 8243 ; weighed 170 pound. and operated with 12hp at 1200rpm. With this design they made air power history as described above. Subsequently on that twenty-four hours though, Wilber soloed a flight of 152 pess in 59 seconds. After 100s of successful flights and small attending, the military took an involvement in their advancement. They designed the first plane that could turn, bank, and do calculate 8s for one-half an hr. They named thier creative activity the Flyer III. The Wright # 8217 ; s winging machine recieved a patent on March 22nd, 1906. One twelvemonth after that in 1907, the foundation of the Aeronautical Experimental Association ( FEA, now the FAA ) was founded. I feel its lone proper to honour the persons that tested themselves and thier trade in order to learn us about aircraft design, processs, and human bounds in the air. The first individual to decease in an aeroplane clang was Lt. Thomas E. Selfridge. He was winging with Orville in 1908. No admiration Orville was the 4th individual in history to acquire a pilot certification: the 3rd was Lousis Paulhan, 2nd was Frank Lham, and the first was Glen Curtiss. The first pilot to be killed was Eug ne Lef bvre in France, on Sept 7, 1909. Calbreth Perry Rodgers bought the first Wright aeroplane. Rodgers recieved 90 proceedingss of flight direction from Wilber. After his ample flight school, Rodgers accepted the challeng of winging across the United States for a award of $ 50,000 ( if he could make it in 30 yearss ) offered by a publishing house. He got a soft drink shaper to sponser him, and therefore the flight of Vin Fiz ( name of the sodium carbonate ) got off the land. He started in New York, and shortly ran into a batch of problem. He crashed someplace between 20 and 36 times. His patron fixed him up though. It took the persistant and invariably bandaged Rodgers 49 yearss to acquire to Pasadena ; funny merely 82 hours and 4 proceedingss were spent in the air. Luckly Rodger # 8217 ; s 51mph clangs didn # 8217 ; t kill him. Amelia Aerhart is another noteworthy individual that sacrificed herself for the promotion of air transit. She was the first adult female to traverse the Atlantic-from Newfoundland to North Ireland, 2,026 stat mis. She did it in 1932. But this wasn # 8217 ; t adequate. In 1937 she wanted to circle the Earth at the equator. Unfortunately she missed the bantam Howeland Island in the Pacific and was neer seen once more. Other indispensable people in air power include Glen Curtiss, Charles Lindbergh, and Ilray Jeppeson. Glen Curtiss flew from Albany to New York in 1910, which crushed the old distance record of 24 stat mis. His flight amounted to 143 entire stat mis. Curtiss was besides a innovator in early engines. Charles Lindbergh is credited for the first flight across the Atlantic from New York to Paris. His flight on the 20th of May, 1927 took him an astonishing 33 hours and 20 proceedingss. His plane # 8220 ; The Spirit of Saint Louis # 8221 ; traveled 3,610 stat mis. Lindbergh thrilled everyone in the provinces and positive people that aeroplanes were # 8217 ; nt merely for barnstormin g shows. They could be used for the transit of mail, lading, and even people. This was all a reasonably new construct. Ilray Jeppeson was a innovator in the country of flight pilotage. In the 1920’s he was an air mail pilot who methodicly charted and mapped mention points and jeopardies. Soon his fellow employees wanted transcripts, and the concern was born. Later he provided pilotage charts and maps to about every major airdrome in the universe. Finally, I will advert a critical flight made by Louis Bleriot across the English Channel. Bleriot was a mechanical fiddler. Kind of like Bell’s male parent in Beauty and the Beast. Bleriot was in the headlamp concern but sought to construct an aeroplane. He accomplished this when he engineered the Model XI monoplane in 1909. With predictable drop the balling manner, he finished the 22 stat mi stretch across the channel by crashing his overheated trade near Dover Castle. He captured the imaginativenesss of all who heard about i t. I did program on traveling into great item about the developments in air foils and aeromechanicss. But I # 8217 ; ve decided its merely excessively complicated. I will travel over some cardinal improvemnets on aerofoils through the old ages. We all understand the construct of Bernouli # 8217 ; s Principle whre the air going over the top of the foil will be accellerated because its somewhat longer, and therefore force per unit area is decreased. The unchanged speed of the air going beneath the foil consists of a higher force per unit area that pushes the air foil up. This construct International Relations and Security Network # 8217 ; t wholly true. Research indicates that air that is seperated doesn # 8217 ; t meet at the draging border simotaneously like one time thought. So, basicly we truly wear # 8217 ; t cognize how it works, we merely discovered the aerofoil through test and mistake. And from there we tweaked it to acquire the coveted consequence. Newton helped us to see t he four forces moving on an aeroplane in flight: lift, push, weight, and retarding force. Therefore we have done much research refering how to diminish retarding force. In WWII the Germans came up with the swept wing design. So alternatively of the organic structure and wings coming together at near perpendicular angles, they are swept back like in the form of an pointer. This reduces, or more accurately delays retarding force. Thus higher velocities can be obtained. Last, another of import devolopment in earodynamics is the laminal air foil. A regular air foil will hold Eddies of air resiling off the surface of the wing. But a laminal air foil will maintain the air flow smooth over the top of the wing and hence a decrease in retarding force is accomplished. Now, I can depict a few of the countless alterations aviation powerplants have gone through. The male parent of aircraft engines is known as Glen Curtiss. He began by doing two cylinder engines for bikes, and in 1906 was looking to sell his engines for aircraft. From what I # 8217 ; ve read he wasn # 8217 ; t a savvy salesman. Once he put his engine in the # 8220 ; June Bug # 8221 ; and flew an amazing 1 kilometre, subsequently he worked with the Navy in planing sea planes. Some clip after the Curtis the Conquerer engines, the Clerget came into usage. It had 1200hp. In 1937, Daimler-Benz came out with their DB-601. It had twelve cylinders, was liquid cooled, and produced 1,475hp. During this epoch, Pratt and Whitney, Lycoming, and Wright Aeronautical wholly contributed to the advancemnet of the recipricating and radial engines. In the early 1940 # 8217 ; s the industry came out with fanjets, propjets, and the fanjet engine designs. Turbofans were of import to the industry, so we re coal-black engines. These two types of engines made ace sonic flight possible, and non to advert a fast, efficient, and safe manner to go. There are excessively many people and developments that contributed to aviation as we know it today. I tried in vain to capture the most of import events in the industry since it # 8217 ; s birth 97 old ages ago. Im certain I missed much. Aviation has become a portion of everyone # 8217 ; s lives. We depend on it for commercialism and enjoyment. The industry will go on to thrive, and better. Bibliography hypertext transfer protocol: //www.letsfindout.com/subjects/aviation/first-channel-crossing.html hypertext transfer protocol: //www.albanyairport.com/History.html hypertext transfer protocol: //www.aerofiles.com/chrono.html hypertext transfer protocol: //www.aviation-history.com/theory/lift.htm hypertext transfer protocol: //www.aviation-history.com/index-engine.htm Jeppesen Private Pilot Manual Copyright 1998,1999