Certain Duties Towards the Society - Essay Example

?Every citizen of a has certain duties towards that and in the interests of the society as a whole, the prescribes certain norms ofconduct that bind all members of the society (Kleyn & Viljoen 2002). Anyone who breaks these norms commits an offence or crime whereby it can be noted that this conduct threatens the whole community as a whole. It then becomes the duty of the state to punish such a person and the body of rules identifying offences and prescribing punishment is criminal law. Against this background, this essay seeks to critically analyse if there is any criminal liability in the case involving Ahmed and Blanche. The essay starts by defining criminal law as well as explaining the factors that constitute a crime of such magnitude. The body of the essay will develop through identification of specific crimes in relation to the given scenario involving Ahmed and Blanche in a bid to establish if there is any criminal liability. According to the online HG.org worldwide directories (http://www.hg.org/crime.html), “criminal law which is often called penal law, involves prosecution by the government of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime.” On the other hand, a crime is further defined as, “any act or (commission of an act) in violation of a public law forbidding it.” Thus, criminal law forms part of public law. Every citizen of a state has certain duties towards the state and in the interest of the society as a whole, the state prescribes certain norms of conduct that bind all members of the state upon which it has a jurisdiction to punish a person who transgresses against these (Kleyn & Viljoen 2002). Thus, the persons who commit crime can be prosecuted in a criminal court and punished if found guilty. The punishment will be determined by the level of crime against the accused once convicted of a crime. It must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that somebody has committed a crime and some facts have been recognised as crimes for many centuries and these mainly emanated from common law and they include but are not limited to the following: murder, robbery, shoplifting, rape, assault, arson as well as bribery among others (Anderson, Dodd & Roos 2003). Where there has been a commission of crimes of such magnitude, it is the state versus the accused whereby the state will initiate the prosecution whereby punishment will be effected once a person has been convicted of a crime. 1 The aim is to prevent further occurrence of similar crimes, punish the offender, rehabilitate and reform the offender as well as to protect the interests of the society. Criminal law is often considered as the most effective technique that can be used to combat certain wrongful acts of conduct according to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. It is thus seen as an effective way of dealing with certain conducts which are deemed wrongful and violate the prescribed norms in society. In the given case involving Ahmed, the facts are: Ahmed, a diabetic, has left his wife, Blanche, and his son, Calum, for Diva who has given birth to his daughter, Elaine but for two years Blanche who has suffered at Ahmed’s humiliating and violent treatment. It is after Blanche sets alight the flat where Diva and Elaine are killed and Ahmed is overcome with grief, forgets to take his insulin and, before the police arrest Blanche, takes his gun and returns to the former matrimonial home. Indeed, when Blanche opens the door, Ahmed fires at her but misses and kills Calum instead. In this regard, it can be noted that specific crimes are punishable because they threaten the interests of the individuals and society as a whole. It is the duty of the state to ensure that these interests are protected. There are specifically four different groups of crime that can be identified as criminal and these include crimes against: another person, against community mores, against the interest of the state and against another person’s property. (Kleyn & Viljoen 2002). The most serious crime against another’s person is that which threatens human life. Killing another human being constitutes either murder or culpable homicide. 2 According to this assertion which posits that threatening another person’s life constitutes a criminal offence clearly indicates that Ahmed is liable for a criminal offence here. Unfortunately the stray bullet hits and kills Calum who has not been the intended target instead of Blanche but this still leaves Ahmed liable for a criminal offence. The law clearly states that pointing a gun at someone constitutes a criminal offence and to make the situation worse, the stray bullet went on to kill an innocent person. Not only is Ahmed liable for criminality after killing Calum but the act of violently treating Blanche also constitutes a crime. Assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm is a crime which warranties prosecution since it will be aimed at inflicting pain on another person. A good example can be drawn from the case of Midgett v. State Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1987. The defendant severely abused his son and in one such incident, the defendant was drunk and he hit his son in the stomach with his fists and the blows proved to be fatal and he was convicted of murder. The defendant was convicted of murder since the law prohibits actions that are likely to be fatal to another person’s life. There is no one with a right to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm on somebody as this will constitute a criminal offence that can be punishable by a prison sentence once the accused has been found guilty and convicted. It is the role of the court to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused person has convicted a crime. However, according to (Kleyn & Viljoen 2002), before one can say that someone has committed a crime, at least all three of the following elements have to be present: an action (act) or omission, which is against the law (unlawful) and where the accused was at fault. Under normal circumstances, every offence requires certain elements to be proved for a conviction of that offence. The above mentioned elements have to be found especially in the legal definition of the specific offence whereby if the state fails to prove any one of the required elements, the accused will not be found guilty. As already noted above, it is the state’s case to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the accused person is guilty of an offence and is liable for punishment. Failure to prove this will mean that the accused person is innocent and will not be liable for any crime. A crime is usually a result of some form of human action or conduct. It is quite clear that aiming a fire arm at someone then pulling a trigger could lead to conviction of murder (Kleyn & Viljoen 2002). In this particular case, it can be noted that Ahmed is liable for culpable homicide given that the stray bullet has mistakenly killed the person who has not been the intended target. Causing death to somebody as a result of a mistake or even negligence will still leave the accused liable for a criminal offence whereby there will be need to ascertain the actual intention of the accused person’s actions in the first place. In this case, it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that his actions were primarily meant for killing Blanche though the bullet hits the wrong target. Such kind of action leaves the accused person liable for criminality given that the law prohibits any person to kill somebody or threaten the lives of other people. The action of the accused is aimed at killing Blanche as a revenge which amounts to culpable homicide. Death of someone as a result of a mistake as is the case may not be treated as murder but culpable homicide given that the circumstances surrounding the accused will be beyond his control. There are some instances where the accused is provoked to such an extent that he cannot control himself and this may not amount to murder but will be treated as culpable homicide. A good example can be drawn from the case of Venkatesan v/s State of Tamil Nadu (1997). Where the provocation of the accused has been grave to the extent that he could not control himself, this action will be treated as culpable homicide. It does not mean that there is no offense but the terms of imprisonment will be a bit light compared to murder. Indeed, Ahmed has been enraged by Blanche’s actions which have left dead his wife and daughter to the extent of meting instant justice of killing her which unfortunately does not work the way he wanted. This resulted in the death of an innocent person and by any standard, this can be regarded as culpable homicide. In some instances, culpable homicide can be intentional or by mistake but the accused person will be liable for an offence of culpable homicide. From the given case above it can be noted that Ahmed is liable for criminality in the form of culpable homicide. His actions were intentional but he only missed the target and mistakenly kills the wrong person which leaves him liable for culpable homicide. Had he killed Blanche he would have been liable for murder. Though provoked to the extreme extent, it can be noted that to a certain extent, the actions of Ahmed are unlawful. Whilst killing may be pardoned by the law, there ought to be extenuating circumstances whereby the accused will has a defense (or excuse) neutralizing the criminal offence. It can be noted that though overpowered by grief over the deaths of his wife and daughter, Ahmed took the law into his hands and decided to mete instant justice on Blanche. Such kind of action is unlawful given that it is the duty of the courts to act as an arbiter in such cases where there may be disputes. The proper procedure follows that a person who has been offended should report the case to the police who in turn will take the necessary measures to ensure that justice has been delivered. Having reported the case to the police, it will be the duty of the court to ensure that the accused has been brought before trial. By virtue of taking the law of the land into one’s hands, it can be noted that this will be tantamount to unlawful conduct which will leave the accused liable for criminal conduct which may warrantee trial in the courts of law. In this case, it can be noted that Ahmed’s actions are unlawful to a certain extent though he has been enraged by the death of his wife and daughter as a result of the fire caused by his former wife Blanche. It can be proved in the court of law that such action is unlawful given that the law of the land prohibits people to act in certain ways that will threaten the safety of the other people or their life. A close analysis of the events that take place in this case shows that Ahmed is liable of culpable homicide which constitutes a criminal offence. Whether intentional or intentional, actions that can cause the death of the other people are unlawful. Each and every human being has the right to life and this right must not be violated by any other person as this would amount to criminal liability if the actions are likely to endanger other people’s lives. The other element that can be drawn to show that Ahmed is liable for criminality is the aspect of faultiness. Fault is a requirement for conviction and it concerns the blameworthy state of the mind of the offender (Anderson, Dodd & Roos 2003). It can be noted that fault can be subdivided into intention and negligence. Of concern in this case is the intention of the offender, Ahmed whose actions have resulted in the death of Calum. He acted with actual intent of killing Blanche but it was only unfortunate that the stray bullet hit a wrong target which none the less resulted in death of that person. Any person who acts with actual intention while knowingly and willingly is liable for an offence in the event that the action will result in death of another person. It can be seen that in this scenario, the aim of Ahmed is to kill Blanche but the bullet hit the wrong target. All the same, it can be noted that he had intention of killing the wife which leaves him liable for criminality. This cannot be regarded as a mistake given that the offender is fully aware of what he is doing and the consequences of his actions. The killing of the son can be regarded as culpable homicide but the offender had the intention of killing the ex wife. Thus, a close analysis of the factors that surround the actions of Ahmed as well as their consequences all posit to the effect that he is liable for culpable homicide given that the stray bullet hits the wrong target and it can be noted that he had intention to kill. He also took the law into his own whereby he decided to mete instant justice before that police had arrived to arrest Blanche who had set a flat on fire which resulted in the death of two innocent people. In the case involving Blanche, it can be noted that she intentionally pushes a lighted rag through the door of the flat that Ahmed now shares with Diva and Melaine after she had been invited for a party. The flat catches fire and, while Ahmed escapes, both Diva and Elaine are killed and it can be noted that the intention was to kill all the inhabitants of that place and Ahmed was only lucky to survive. A crime of such magnitude can be described as arson as well as murder. There is abundant evidence that shows that the perpetrator acted with intention to cause malicious injury to property as well as to kill the inhabitants of the flat. According to Smith (2010), “arson is defined as the wilful act of setting something on fire, usually a home or another type of structure.” This is a punishable offence the world over since it puts the lives of people as well as property at risk. Once convicted, this type of crime usually carries a harsh penalty given that arson is often committed with full knowledge and intention to cause malicious injury to property or even to destroy the lives of the inhabitants inside especially if the property has been set alight whilst there are people inside. If somebody has been killed by the fire, it is treated as murder and the offender will be liable for two different counts of criminal offences. These carry equally severe penalties once the perpetrator has been convicted. People usually commit arson for a variety of reasons of which some would involve the need of attempting to settle previous grudges. As noted in this case, Blanche has been subjected to two years of violent treatment by Ahmed and she has realised that the invite to a birthday party is the most opportune time for her to settle her previous differences with her once abusive husband. As already noted above, it is the state’s case to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the accused person is guilty of a criminal offence which makes him or her liable for punishment. Thus, a crime is usually a result of some form of human action or conduct. It is quite clear that intentionally setting a house on fire while fully knowing that that there are people inside constitutes both murder and arson (Kleyn & Viljoen 2002). In this particular case, it can be noted that Blanche is liable for these two criminal offences given that she intentionally sets the flat on fire with the sole aim of killing Ahmed and his family. Fortunately, Ahmed managed to escape from the inferno but both Diva and Elaine are killed. Causing death to somebody leaves the accused liable for a criminal offence whereby there will be need to ascertain the actual intention of the accused person’s actions in the first place. In this case, it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Blanche wanted to settle her previous grudges with her ex-husband. In other words, it can be noted that Blanche wanted to revenge for the ill-treatment she was subjected to while she was still engaged with Ahmed. A good example can be drawn from the case of R v Caldwell [1981] 1 All ER 961where the respondent had done some work the owner of a hotel as the result of which he had a quarrel with the owner, got drunk and set fire to the hotel in revenge. He was indicted on two counts of arson though extenuating circumstances emanating from his mental state of the mind such as drunkenness were taken into consideration. Somebody’s actions play a great role in determining the guiltiness of the perpetrator. It can be proved beyond any reasonable in this case that Blanche sets alight the flat on fire with the aim of revenging against her ex-husband which leaves her liable for a criminal offence. It can also be noted that the actions of Blanche are unlawful. There is no individual with the power to cause malicious injury to property as well as destroying the lives of the other people. Each and every one has a right to life and anyone who deliberately takes the life of that person will be liable for a criminal offence. In the event that Blanche would have been disgruntled by the treatment which she was subjected to by her husband, she could have approached the courts so as to allow justice to take its course. There is no one who is above the law under any circumstance and it is the duty of the courts to ensure that justice prevails every time once a case has been brought to their attention. It can be seen that the unlawful conduct of Blanche has resulted in the loss of two precious lives as well as causing malicious injury to property which leaves her liable to criminality. By any standard, this is a punishable offence given the extent of its magnitude. Blanche is at fault by setting the flat on fire as it can be noted that she does that with actual intent to kill. She is fully aware that her actions will result in the loss of life as well as the destruction of property but she goes on to execute the action. This leaves her liable for a criminal offence which is punishable by a prison sentence. The law prohibits individual persons to destroy property using fire as well as causing death of other people using the same means. Once proved that the offender’s actions have been intentional, he or she will be liable for a criminal offence as is the case involving Blanche. Over and above, it can be concluded that every citizen of a state has certain duties towards that state and in the interests of the society as a whole, the state prescribes certain norms of conduct that bind all members of the society (Kleyn & Viljoen 2002). Anyone who breaks these norms commits an offence or crime whereby it can be noted that this conduct threatens the whole community as a whole. It then becomes the duty of the state to punish such a person and the body of rules identifying offences and prescribing punishment is criminal law. Thus, the persons who commit crime can be prosecuted in a criminal court and punished if found guilty. The punishment will be determined by the level of crime against the accused once convicted of a crime. The case involving Ahmed and Blanche shows that they are liable for criminality as a result of their actions that resulted in the loss of innocent lives. Ahmed is liable for culpable homicide given that the stray bullet killed Calum. On the other hand, Blanche is liable for both murder and arson by virtue of causing malicious injury to property while at the same time killing Diva and Elaine. Under no circumstance is an individual allowed to go on top since the court is the highest arbiter of any kind of dispute that may exist between individuals. References Anderson, A.M., Dodd A. & Roos M.C. (2003). Everyone’s guide to law. CT. Zebra Inc. Criminal law-Penal law-Guide to criminal and Penal Law Accessed from: http://www.hg.org/crime.html 06 February 2009. Culpable homicide does not amount to murder http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/culpable-homicide-does-not-amount-to-murder-3317530.html Duplessis L. (1999). An introduction to law. 3rd Edition. Juta Kleyn D. & Viljoen F. (2002). Beginner’s guide for law students. 3rd Edition. CT. JUTA Midgett v. State Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1987http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/midgett.shtml Smith S.E. (22 September 2010). What is arson? Wise geek http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-arson.htm R v Caldwell [1981] 1 All ER 961http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/Caldwell.php Read More