CRIMINAL LAW
By (REPLACE both names)
(Name of class)
(Professor’s name)
(Institution)
(City, State)
(Date)
Criminal Liability is actually what unlocks the logical struc of the Criminal Law. Element of a crime that the prosecutor needs to prove is a principle of criminal liability. There are a number of crimes that involve all the principles of liability; these are called “crimes of criminal conduct”. Homicide, for example, is a crime because all one is needed to prove actus reus, mens rea, causation harm and concurrence. The requirement that the prosecutor must provide evidence in each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt, is referred to “corpus delicti rule”. Burglary, for example, is a crime because all you need to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt, this is referred to as an actus reus concurring with a mens rea. There are crimes that involve all the principles of criminal liability, which are referred to as true crimes. .Given this scenario, criminal law has been broken. First, Marley and his friend Bob have intention of intruding and stealing from Scrooge. It states under the theft act state a person is guilty of theft of burglary if he or she enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser and intents to commit the offence of burglary. Though Marley is dead, they both broke the law.We could also say they had equipped themselves for stealing. The theft act, states that a person is guilty if he has with him any items for use in the course of the incident or which the items are in connection with any burglary. Given our case, an offence was committed by them.Marley gets to died before all is heard by the police, already a blame game is created by Bob that he was drunk before accompanying Marley to Scrooge house. The question is why he fled from the incident when he got struck on the arm by Scrooge? It is important to understand if Bob is guilty. When Bob was in the incident, he was holding items which he later dropped, if truly he did not know what was happening and was drunk then why did he fled away leaning his friend behind. Bob broke the law because right back his mind he knew what he was doing.Scrooge is under pressure, he has actually caused one’s life. Under the law of homicide, human life is of unique value. While danger to life is an element of most crimes, the law focuses on it directly, by declaring criminal in a range of conduct that actually causes death. Since life is valued highly, such conduct is not allowed more generally than conduct causing other kinds of harm. Given our case, homicide has taken place since the act of killing a human being by another human being has occured.Given that homicide is an issue, the law makes no distinctions among humans as victims. The human life is always a priority thus protected, and none of the criteria is worth by which we may classify persons for other purposes is material. Scrooge has to answer on that given that he used a sword to take one’s life and harm another. The question behind this is, why the sword? Did he intent to harm? Was Scrooge frightened at the time of incident? Had such an incident ever happened before? This entire question will determine whether he broke the law or not.In homicide, if someone acts with no intent to kill or if he or she has the intent but the death occurs, it may likely not be obvious whether his or her conduct or other contributing factor for which someone else is criminally responsible should be regarded as the cause of death. The matter is then left to the trier of fact, who is to decide on the basis of ordinary experience and common sense whether to attribute causal responsibility.For Scrooge case this homicide would have been referred as Justifiable, though there are no fault homicides. It involves the death of someone under a circumstance of necessity or duty for example self defense by scrooge in the time of the incident.Scrooge still has to defend himself on his act. To convict a defendant of crime, the prosecutor must and always provide prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of the process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. For our case, Self-Defense would be. Self-defense is a defense asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, for example, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder or battery (striking someone). The defendant could admit that he did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was a result of the other person’s threatening actions. Scrooge would do the same, arguing that there was a presence of a threatening action. In most self-defense cases the core issues are who is the aggressor, was the defendant’s belief that self-defense as necessary a reasonable one, and If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?Self-defense is always rooted in the belief that one should be given an opportunity to protect themselves from physical harm. It means that a person does not have to wait until he is struck to act in self-defense. In law, if a reasonable person in same circumstances would think that he is about to be physically attacked, an individual has the right to strike first and prevent the attack from the other person. However, any act of self-defense one cannot use more force than is reasonable, if one used too much force he may be regarded as guilty of a crime. Scrooge could be referred as guilty under this state, the fact that he used force and by so doing it resulted to Marley death.Bob could also defend himself, stating that he was Under the Influence of alcohol. It is argued that if someone commits a crime under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and him or her mental functioning was impaired, they cannot be held accountable for their actions. However, voluntary intake of drugs or alcohol does not excuse criminal conduct. If the defendant knows (or should know) that drugs and alcohol affect one’s mental functioning, they should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of the voluntary use.Scrooge would also refer himself under this defense, that at the time of crime he was under the influence of alcohol since he was at home resting or taking a nap. Though his take could have been voluntary, he being at his house and disturbed could not have him guilty. Still Scrooge is not found guilty.In Some states, an exception to this general rule is allowed. If someone is accused of committing a crime that requires some form of specific intent meaning that it was intended with consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to consequences, the accused could also argue that he or she was too drunk to have formed intended to commit the crime. This is a partial defense; however, it does not entirely excuse the defendant for his action. For such a situation, the defendant will be convicted of another crime that doesn’t require proving the specific intent. For example, someone accused of assault with the specific intent to kill another but only convicted the assault with a deadly weapon, will not require specific intent.In law, assault theoretically mean different things, it is referred as an act which possibly recklessly or intentionally causes someone to apprehend immediate or unlawful personal violence. Recently there has been modern trend to use the term ‘assault’ in a broad sense to include both battery and assault. Scrooge could be accused in term of assault but could argue on ‘actus reus of assault’, that there was a requirement of immediacy in the crime of assault. It will mean that Scrooge must have perceived some form of threat and as a result there was the need of action, there and then. Most courts have on occasion, given a somewhat liberal interpretation to the concept of immediacy.Conclusion Given this case, Bob is Guilty because he knew what he was doing at the time of the incident. He fled away leaving his friend Marley behind while he dropped the items he was holding.For Scrooge, he is not guilty because he acted according to defend himself using the sword and at the time of the incident he was under threat.
Literature Referencing
Books (and chapters within books)
A book by a single author will be cited like this: MT Molan, Criminal Law:Cases and Materials (3 rd edn Cavendish, London 2005) 29 The author’s initials or first name ( if known ) come before the surname and the title is in italics. The edition, publisher, place of publication, and date, follow in brackets. If the edition of the book you used is later than the first, which is quite likely, you MUST specify this. If you need to give the page numbers for the specific section you consulted, add them last. If the book is a collection of chapters edited by one or more people, use (ed) or (eds) after their name(s). For example:
M Elliott (ed), Beatson, Matthews and Elliott’s Administrative Law :Text and Materials (OUP, Oxford 2005).
The above example also shows that well established books continue to be known by their original titles long after their original authors have died and each new editor must be identified.
For multiple authors, REPLACE ‘and’ between each name for up to three authors. For more than three authors, give the details of the first author, and add ‘and others’, e.g.
Damien Chalmers and others, European Union law : text and materials (CUP, Cambridge 2006 )
Chapters within Books
To identify any particular chapter in a book of edited readings, you must use the word in and put the title of the chapter in single inverted commas. For example:
MA Jones, ‘Breach of Duty’ in A Grubb (ed), Principles of Medical Law (2 nd edn OUP, Oxford 2004)
