Establishing a Case for Murder

Establishing a Case for Murder There is little doubt that Gharmi will be charged with Peter’s murder, unless any autopsy carried out shows that his death was completely unrelated to his ingestion of the rat poison. On the given facts this seems extremely unlikely. In order to establish a case for murder it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove that Gharmi was in the correct state of mind (mens rea) when she placed the rat poison in Peter’s rice-baryani. For murder this is malice aforethought[1] either express or implied[2]. This can also be described as an intention to unlawfully kill the victim (express malice) or cause grievous bodily harm (implied malice). Grievous bodily harm is defined for these purposes as really serious harm[3]. In addition to this mental element the Crown must establish that Gharmi actually did the act which caused Peter’s death (actus reus), that is she placed the poison in the food – clearly a very simple process in this instance. Dependant upon the evidence available it may be the case that the Crown Prosecution Service does not feel that it will be possible to sustain a murder charge. In this case they may downgrade the charge to one of involuntary manslaughter. This would be the case if it was felt that Gharmi had not intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Peter[4], but had simply intended to ‘injure, aggrieve or annoy’[5] him. For a charge of involuntary manslaughter to be possible, the act which causes[6] the death must be unlawful, meaning it must constitute a criminal offence[7]. There is little doubt the poisoning of Peter’s food and tea would constitute an unlawful act[8], regardless of Gharmi’s intentions, unless it can be shown that she intended no harm, which seems unlikely. Gharmi can only be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if it is thought by a jury that it would be inevitable to the reasonable person that her actions would pose the risk of at least some h arm to Peter[9]. It is important to note that it is irrelevant whether Peter’s death was caused by Gharmi’s poisoning of his food or his tea. Since it was possible for either to cause his death it is not necessary to draw a distinction between the two[10]. Involuntary manslaughter has been described as a homicide which occupies ‘the shifting sands between the uncertain †¦ definition of murder and the unsettled boundaries of excusable or accidental death’[11] and it is this uncertainty that Gharmi would need to rely on. Is it possible for a jury to be sure that she intended to kill Peter? Clearly the facts of the case are extremely relevant here, namely the amount of rat poison used and Gharmi’s knowledge of its possible effects. If convicted of manslaughter Gharmi may, at the discretion of the court, face up to life imprisonment[12]. If the Crown Prosecution Service intends to persist with the charge of murder against her Gharmi will need to consider whether she is a position to try to defend the charge in some way. The most likely defence available to Gharmi is that of voluntary manslaughter by provocation. The jury must be satisfied that Gharmi was ‘provoked (whether by things done or by things said or both together) to lose [her] self control’[13]. It is interesting to note that despite this being a defence the onus of proof is placed on the prosecution to demonstrate that there was not any provocation. The judge must make this clear to the jury[14] and should indicate to them any evidence that might indicate that provocation took place and therefore support the defence[15]. In essence whether this defence is available is purely a decision for the jury based on the evidence. Section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 raises two questions which must be considered by the jury. The first is the subjective question of whether the Gharmi was provoked to lose her self-control by the things that Peter had said or done to her. In order for provocation to be considered it must be decided that Gharmi was so affected by Peter’s words and actions that she suffered a sudden loss of self-control so that she was ‘so subject to passion as to make [her] for the moment not the master of [her] mind’[16]. Clearly the longer the time between the provocation and the actions of the defendant the less likely it is that the provocation can be said to result in a sudden loss of control[17]. This is more likely to be considered to constitute a situation where the defendant simply exacts revenge on the victim for their actions, and this level of deliberation would be inconsistent with the defence of provocation. Whilst it is essential in order for the defence of provocation to be valid that the act of the defendant follows immediately upon the provoking acts of the victim, it is not essential that the victim’s last act is the only one that triggers the defendant’s actions[18]. This is clearly hugely relevant to Gharmi, in that she has suffered a level of abuse from Peter for the last two years. Since Gharmi has been involved in a series of abusive and violent arguments with Peter over time, the jury are far more likely to be asked to consider that this, on the face of it, relatively minor argument constitutes a ‘last straw’ for Gharmi[19] and that she suffered a loss of self-control following it. It is irrelevant for the purposes of the defence of provocation that Gharmi may have at this or any point in the past induced Peter with her comments, especially regarding Dhoop, to act in the way he did. Since section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957 does not expressly preclude circumstances where the defendant has induced an action or a reaction from the victim, which in return caused the defendant to lose control the defence of provocation must be put before the jury[20], as it would if the defendant had not caused any kind of provocation to the victim. It seems likely that Gharmi would meet the requirements of this subjective test, but in order to successfully plead provocation as a defence to murder she must also meet the requirements of the objective test in section 3. The jury must consider not only that the defendant lost their self-control, but also whether all of the things done or said as a provocation might have provoked the reasonable man to do as the defendant did[21]. The directions that would need to be given to a jury at this point are somewhat complex and would need very careful consideration. The jury must assess the level of provocation in relation to any particular peculiarities that the defendant might have[22]. If the defendant is of a particularly sensitive nature regarding some aspect, this must be taken into account when the jury are considering the level of provocation applied by the victim. When this has been assessed however, the jury must then weigh up the standard of the defendant’s self-control against that of the reasonable person, of the same sex and age of the defendant, exercising ordinary powers of self-control[23]. The jury can not take into account any of the defendant’s particular peculiarities when assessing whether they have exercised reasonable self-control. It is not necessary for the act which has been provoked to be in any way proportionate to the provocation, but the jury should consider this when deciding whether the reasonable man might have reacted in the same manner as the defendant[24]. What this means for Gharmi is that whilst a jury will take into account any personal traits that she might possess with regards to the level of provocation which might provoke a reaction from her, they will then need to decide whether a woman of the same age as her, with a normal level of self-control, might have acted in the same manner. They will take into consideration the level of abuse Gharmi has received from Peter and the period over which it has been received for the purposes of assessing whether it is of a serious enough nature to support the defence of provocation. Having done this they cannot take it into account further when deciding whether Gharmi acted reasonably, this must be assessed against the standard described above. There are one or two matters which may be of concern to the jury when considering provocation in relation to Gharmi’s killing of Peter. The first is that her reaction did not follow the provocation immediately. Gharmi spent time cooking Peter’s meal and, it may be considered, took time to plan her revenge in a controlled manner. The counter argument to this would of course be that Gharmi must have been aware that her actions would result in her arrest and in that circumstance it seems far more likely to have been a moment of loss of control on her part. It would seem unreasonable to think that she might prefer to kill Peter and leave her son without either parent, instead of exacting some other kind of revenge on him; such as leaving and marrying Dhoop. The other concern would be that her revenge, given the fact that the relationship was a tempestuous one, was not proportionate to the provocation. It has been mentioned that this does not need to be the case, but it is s omething that would be considered by a jury when deciding whether Gharmi’s reasonable counterpart would have acted in the same manner she did[25]. At this stage of their deliberations the jury cannot take into account any of Gharmi’s personal characteristics, such as the possibility that she might be more sensitive to Peter’s comments as a result of the length of time the abuse has continued for. They must simply say that if provoked would the reasonable woman of Gharmi’s age have reacted as she did. It is far less likely that a person who has not suffered sustained abuse would have reacted by killing Peter, but this is how Gharmi must be judged. If found guilty of murder Gharmi will face a mandatory life sentence, which means, for the type of murder she has committed, she will face a prison sentence of not less that fifteen years[26]. It has already been stated that if convicted of involuntary manslaughter she could also face a life sentence[27] there is however some discretion in sentencing. The same applies if Gharmi successfully pleads voluntary manslaughter through provocation[28]. The court will take into account the level of provocation, the time span between the provocation and the unlawful killing and the length of time that the provocation has taken place for. Clearly the less the provocation and the shorter its duration the longer the sentence that will be issued to the defendant, providing there are no other mitigating circumstances. The sentence range is from life imprisonment to no custodial sentence at all. It seems likely on the facts that Gharmi would face some kind of custodial sentence, but given the length of time the provocation continued for it, would be lessened from life, however it is recognised that actual physical violence or anticipated violence are considered a greater provocation than verbal abuse alone. On the given facts Gharmi did unlawfully kill Peter. If this was not intentional she may face a charge of manslaughter. In 1989, the last year for which figures are available, the number of indictments for homicide was 371 of which there were only 28 convictions for involuntary manslaughter as opposed to 131 for murder and 110 for other types of manslaughter[29]. With this in mind it seems, on the facts, that Gharmi is far more likely to be successful in a plea of manslaughter through provocation in order to reduce her conviction from murder than have it reduced to involuntary manslaughter by claiming that she did not intend to kill Peter. 2000 words Table of Cases A-G’s Reference (No. 4 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 617 A-G for Jersey v. Holley [2005] UKPC 23 DPP v. Camplin [1978] AC 705 Phillips v. R [1969] 2 AC 130 R v. Ahluwia [1993] Crim. LR 63 R v. Cascoe [1970] 2 All ER 833 R v. Church [1966] 1 QB 59 R v. Dias [2001] EWCA Crim 2986, R v. Kennedy [2005] 1 WLR 2159 et al R v. Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932 R v. Humphries [1994] 4 All ER 1009 R v. Inner South London Coroner, ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 R v. Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 740 DPP v. Smith [1961] AC 290 R v. Stewart (Benjamin James) [1995] 4 All ER 999 R v. Taylor (1834) 2 Lew CC 215 R v. Thornton (Sara Elizabeth) (No.2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023 Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462 Table of Legislation Criminal Justice Act 2003 Homicide Act 1957 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Bibliography Allen, M. J., Elliott and Wood’s Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 8th Edition (2001), London: Sweet Maxwell Halsbury’s Laws of England, Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure (Volume 11(1)) (2006 Reissue) Paragraphs – 92 – 101: Web Version Holton, R. and Shute, S., Self Control in the Modern Provocation Defence (2007), Oxford: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (27(1), 49 – 73) Office for National Statistics, Criminal Statistics for England and Wales (1998), Cm 4649 Ormerod, D., Smith and Hogan Criminal Law 12th Revised Edition, (2008), Oxford: Oxford University Press Ormerod, D., Smith and Hogan Criminal Law: Cases and Materials 9th Revised Edition, (2005), Oxford: Oxford University Press Reed, A., Jury Directions on Provocation (2006), Criminal Lawyer (158, 1 – 3) Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline: Manslaughter by Reason of Provocation (2005) Slapper, G. and Kelly, D., The English Legal System 7th Edition (2004), London: Cavendish 1 Footnotes [1] Homicide Act 1957, s.1 [2] Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462 [3] DPP v. Smith [1961] AC 290 [4] R v. Taylor (1834) 2 Lew CC 215 [5] Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.24 [6] R v. Inner South London Coroner, ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 [7] R v. Dias [2001] EWCA Crim 2986, R v. Kennedy [2005] 1 WLR 2159 et al [8] Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.24 [9] R v. Church [1966] 1 QB 59 [10] A-G’s Reference (No. 4 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 617 [11] Hogan, ‘The Killing Ground: 1964 – 73’ [1974] Crim. L.R. 387,391 [12] Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.5 [13] Homicide Act 1957 s.3 [14] R v. Cascoe [1970] 2 All ER 833 [15] R v. Stewart (Benjamin James) [1995] 4 All ER 999 [16] R v. Duffy [1949] 1 All ER 932 [17] R v. Ahluwia [1993] Crim. LR 63 [18] R v. Humphries [1994] 4 All ER 1009 [19] R v. Thornton (Sara Elizabeth) (No.2) [1996] 2 All ER 1023 [20] R v. Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 740 [21] Homicide Act 1957 s.3 [22] DPP v. Camplin [1978] AC 705 [23] A-G for Jersey v. Holley [2005] UKPC 23 [24] Phillips v. R [1969] 2 AC 130 [25] Phillips v. R [1969] 2 AC 130 [26] Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.269 [27] Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.5 [28] Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline: Manslaughter by Reason of Provocation (2005) [29] Criminal Statistics for England and Wales Cm 4649 (1998)

The Greek hero vs. The Anglo-Saxon hero :: Comparison Compare Contrast Essays

The Greek hero vs. The Anglo-Saxon hero The hero stands as an archetype of who we should be and who we wish to be. However, the hero has inherent flaws which we do not wish to strive towards. In literature, these flaws are not used as examples of what we should be but rather as examples of what not to be. This is especially dominant in the Greek hero. While the Greek hero follows his fate, making serious mistakes and having a fairly simple life, the Anglo-Saxon "super" hero tries, and may succeed, to change his fate, while dealing with a fairly complex life. The Greek hero is strong and mighty while his wit and intelligence are highly valued. In the Greek tragedy, the hero struggles to avoid many flaws. Among these flaws are ambition, foolishness, stubbornness, and hubris-the excessive component of pride. He must overcome his predestined fate-a task which is impossible. From the beginning of the tale, it is already clear that the hero will ultimately fail with the only way out being death. In Oedipus, the hero is already c onfronted with a load of information about his family and gouges his eyes out. At this point, when he tries to outwit his fate he has already lost and is sentenced to death. The Anglo-Saxon hero must also deal with his "fate" but tries, and usually succeeds, to change it. While the Greek hero battles his fate with his excessive pride and intelligence, the Anglo-Saxon hero tries to eliminate his doom by force. The Anglo-Saxon hero is considered a barbarian of sorts due to his sometimes unethical and immoral views and courses of action. At the end, the Anglo-Saxon succeeds in altering his fate though. The Greek hero is so normal, that the reader can relate to him. He is usually a "common" human being with no extraordinary life. His story seems believable, even possible. We would have no hard time imagining the hero's conflict as being ours. As in the case with Oedipus, we can understand how he feels it would be possible for his circumstances to be applied to our lives. Although the details may seem a little farfetched it is not impossible that there is some truth to the story. On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon hero, being super-human, is especially difficult to relate to. The Anglo-Saxon may reach the same pedestal as a God.

The History of Ballooning :: Historical Balloon Hot Air Essays

The History of Ballooning It all started in 1783, when two brothers conceived the idea of human flight with smoke. Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier came from a family of paper-makers in Annonay, France. They tried to capture smoke from the fireplace in a paper bag, and soon found that it rose. It soon became obvious to them that when the smoke cooled down, the sack would fall. They created the first real balloon in 1783. "It was 35 ft in diameter and had a capacity of 23,000 cubic ft, and it was made of linen lined paper" (Fraser). These brothers had impeccable will and continued working with unbelievable progress. Within a few short weeks they released a balloon to 6,000ft, and it traveled for 2 miles. The world was becoming aware of these tests and everyone was catching "balloon fever." Within the same time frame, two brothers by the name of Robert acquired the help of a noted physicist named JAC Charles. The Robert brothers coated the silk balloons with rubber in order to prevent the leakage of gas (Josephy). Charles had large hopes for applying his idea of using hydrogen to float these balloons. Charles later became very famous for his ideas and test flights in which silk balloons filled with hydrogen released from iron filings would be called charlieres (Fraser). This seemed to be a much more technical idea since logic would tell us that a gas that was 18 times lighter than air, should indeed rise, especially when the Montgolfier's have already discovered that hot air rises. By this time everyone was impressed, including Benjamin Franklin(who was an American Statesman living in Paris at the time) and the King of France (Fraser). Franklin, who had already done his kite experimen ts, was especially astounded. Now it was time for the Montgolfiers to regain their fame. The third balloon carried the first living things in a basket, which was attached to the bottom. The basket carried a lamb, rooster, and duck, and they all landed safely (Fraser). After this, the King's historian felt that it was time for a human to fly, and felt that there was no better person than he. So, on October 15, 1783, De Rozier became the first aeronaut, and he landed safely after a four-hour flight (Fraser). Things were progressing quickly, and the first actual voyage occurred on November 21, 1783 with De Rozier and a man named Marquis D'Arlandes (Fraser).

Costs and Price

Week I Quiz Results/Answers ECO561 1. Revenue increases when * producer surplus increases 2. An increase in the price of an inelastic good * increases revenues 3. Price elasticity of Demand increases when * people become less price sensitive over time 4. The purpose of a market in a market system is to * bring buyers and sellers into contact 5. By specializing in the production of one good, a company is able to benefit from economies of scale which increases its revenue. Which of the following is an attribute of specialization? * Saving time by allowing a worker to focus on one task . The market system promotes progress by * providing incentive for technological advances 7. Productive efficiency is achieved when * the best technology is used 8. The market is said to be in equilibrium when * neither a shortage nor a surplus exists 9. The market will move to a higher equilibrium price if * the increase in demand is greater than the increase in supply 10. The intersection of supply and demand will be at a lower equilibrium price but a higher equilibrium quantity if * demand is constant and supply increases 11. When a price ceiling occurs the market price will be lower than the equilibrium price 12. Because the goals of firms, entrepreneurs, and workers have different incentives, which of the following principles applies? * Self-interest Week 2 Quiz Results/Answers ECO561 1. Purely competitive firms increase total revenue by * increasing production (To increase revenue, firms look to increase price or quantity, as price multiplied by quantity equals total revenue. Purely competitive firms can sell as much as they want at the market price. Adding additional units of the product does not result in a change in the market price.Therefore, since purely competitive firms do not influence price, they increase total revenue by increasing quantity). 2. What are two ways for a competitive firm to determine the optimal level of production, that is, the level of production tha t will maximize profit or minimize losses? * Comparing total revenue to total cost or marginal revenue to marginal costs (A firm can look at two factors when considering whether it is maximizing profit or minimizing losses. First, it can find the maximum difference between total revenue and total cost.Second, a firm can look at the additional revenue gained from selling one more unit and at the additional cost from producing that additional unit. As long as the additional revenue from selling one more unit is greater than the cost of producing that unit, the firm will continue to increase its revenue. If the additional cost of producing another unit is greater than the additional revenue generated by selling that additional unit, the firm takes away from its total profit; this is the difference between revenue and cost.Thus, a firm maximizes its profit by producing at the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Before that, additional profit can be generated, while after that, the firm reduces it overall profit). 3. Suppose that a firm determines that its marginal revenue is greater than its marginal cost, it would be better to * increase production (Inelastic goods are necessities that consumers continue to purchase even when the price increases. This increases the revenue, as more is paid for each good. The percentage change in price increases faster than the change in quantity, which may remain constant.When more is paid for a good or a service, revenue increases). 4. It is profitable for a firm to continue employing additional resources as long as * Marginal Revenue Product >= Marginal Resource Cost (As with the optimal level of production for a good, the optimal usage of a resource is determined by ensuring that the revenue from that resource is at least equal to the marginal cost of that resource) 5. As additional units are produced, the marginal revenue product falls for all firms because marginal product decreases.For firms operating in indu stries that are not perfectly competitive, marginal revenue product also falls because * product price falls as output increases (While perfectly or purely competitive firms must accept the price set by supply and demand in the market, firms facing other market structures have some control over the price they set for their products. However, to increase the quantity demanded of their product, they must decrease their price. In doing so, while some firms may have the ability to set different prices for different groups, called price discriminating, most firms cannot.As a result, the firm must lower the price on that good for all consumers; therefore, the product price falls as output increases) 6. All things being equal, an increase in demand for a product†¦ * increases demand for the resources used in its production (When a firm sees an increase in the demand for its product, it will increase its production. In doing so, the firm increases the demand for the resources it uses t o produce its product. An increase in demand for a product does increase the quantity supplied. The firm sees that it can increase the price on each unit to address the shortage that emerges, so there is more sold.This does not mean that the firm changes the amount of production at the original price) 7. Marginal cost can be defined as the addition to _____ of one more unit of output. * total variable costs (Marginal cost measures the cost of producing the next unit. Because fixed costs do not change with additional output, they do not add to total fixed costs. In addition, while average costs—both total and fixed—change with additional levels of output, as average costs are divided by the quantity produced, they do not reflect the full addition to the cost.Thus, the cost of producing an additional unit reflects the additional cost of inputs needed for production (variable costs). 8. If a firm starts small and, over time, builds successively larger plant sizes or adds additional work space in an office, average total costs are most likely to * initial decrease then increase 9. Demand for resources, including labor, depend on its * productivity While being profitable, available, and accessible are relevant to the demand for resources, the productivity of the resource in question determines how profitable the good or service will be. 0. The primary difference between increasing- and decreasing-cost industries lies in * the fact that the average total cost (ATC) of firms in increasing-cost industries will first decline and then eventually increase with output, while decreasing-cost firms experience progressively lower ATC with increased output (By definition, an increasing-cost industry experiences a rising ATC as output increases, while a decreasing-cost industry enjoys a lower ATC as output increases. 11. When adding labor or other factors of production, businesses may see their total product rise, but see their per-unit increase in return for eac h additional unit diminish. This phenomenon * is known as diminishing marginal product and has general market application (The diminishing marginal product theory states that the marginal product decreases as a firm, introduces one new input into production while holding all other inputs fixed. ) 12.In the short run, firms should shut down if The correct answer is A. AVC > P. In the long term, a firm wants to receive a price greater than the cost of production per unit: average total cost. In the short term, a firm may have bills, regardless of whether it is producing anything. For example, a firm may have signed a long-term lease or may have other contracts it is obligated to pay. These costs are generally fixed costs that do not vary with the level of production.However, firms also have a variety of other costs that are only incurred if the firm is producing: variable costs. Thus, in the short term, a firm should determine how to minimize the costs it will face, such as closing do wn and only paying the fixed costs or continuing to operate and incurring both the fixed costs and variable costs but offsetting the variable costs and some of the fixed costs with the revenues earned from production.If the price is less than the average variable cost, then only some of the variable costs will be covered and all of the fixed costs are incurred; therefore, the firm is spending more by continuing to operate rather than shutting down. 13. When you are considering the value of a resource in its next best use, you are considering its * opportunity cost Opportunity cost is defined as the value of the next best use of the resources. In economic terms, opportunity costs include both the explicit costs of production and the implicit costs of production. 14.Of the four major market structures—perfectly competitive, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, monopoly— reducing variable costs of production * enhance profit per-unit, because profit equals revenue minus c ost (Under all market structures, the profit maximization rule stays the same, that is MC = MR. A cost reduction in all cases reduces the MC and increases the profit margin. ) Week Three Quiz Results ECO561 1. | Answered| | 2. | Answered| | 3. | Answered| | 4. | Answered| | 5. | Answered| | 6. | Answered| | 7. | Unanswered| | 8. | Unanswered| | 9. | Unanswered| | 10. Unanswered| | 11. | Unanswered| | 12. | Unanswered| | 13. | Unanswered| | 14. | Unanswered| | ————————————————- Top of Form Bottom of Form 1. | Answered| | 2. | Answered| | 3. | Answered| | 4. | Answered| | 5. | Answered| | 6. | Answered| | 7. | Unanswered| | 8. | Unanswered| | 9. | Unanswered| | 10. | Unanswered| | 11. | Unanswered| | 12. | Unanswered| | 13. | Unanswered| | 14. | Unanswered| | ——————————————†”—- Top of Form 7. Marginal cost can be defined as the addition to _____ of one more unit of output. Bottom of Form