Criminal Law: Sighting and Cause Evaluating - Essay Example

4th December Criminal Law: Sighting and Evaluating the Cause It is believed that the comprehension and characterization of rules and regulations, structuring and functioning, and formulation with regard to crime and its evaluation is called criminal law. In any society, criminal law is a significant element which keeps the configuration of a peaceful of society intact and helps in the elimination of any acts or proceedings which may or may not affect the society in a negative way. Criminal law provides general principles which make us aware of our responsibilities being human beings and a part of this society, believes Fletcher.1 Thus, the importance of Criminal Law in the establishment of a well organized society cannot be closed the eyes to as it is the most important code of conduct developed by the legislative authorities of all the nations. With reference to the society and its organization by the implementation and procession of various criminal laws, it is now a fact that the studying of criminal law as subjects and majors has now become commonly increased in our society. Numbers of organizations are now offering courses in recognizing criminal law. This has lead to an increase in the awareness among people of the society and has lead to a decrease in crimes like murder and assassination, and other massacres. Thus, criminal law is of great worth in unlocking cases of crimes and unearthing the reasons behind the deaths of people, which most of the times are more in number than assumed. As Singer and La Fond elucidated that in this manner the procedure acts as a framework for the damages done to the society. 2 In terms of specified case evaluation, the particular case in which Kelly who was a patient of Bronchitis was attacked by Abdul has been reviewed below. Kelly, who died after her parents refused blood transfusion and after the doctor unplugged the ventilator, was to be prepared for a court application of overnight treatment administration. Through this case, the reasoning behind the cause of death has been examined and verified further in the paper as various models of unlocking criminal law and its application will be used along the examination. To engage in this examination and assessment of what the actual cause of Kelly’s death was, and who is to be blamed for her demise, it is necessary to master in understanding how criminal law has been enforced and how it shall be processed. Therefore, the significance of Criminal Law has been discussed with reference to the case through which the following procession has been commenced. But first, it is important that we take a brief look at the provided scenario. As Tong, Bryant and Horvath were of the view that a brief assessment of the supplied set-up is necessary as the social reality of the occurrence is mirrored.3 The produced affirmatives of the case include; a) Kelly was attacked by Abdul (who stabbed her with a knife twice) as a result of which she had a punctured lung and she suffered a ruptured kidney. b) After losing a large amount of blood (and being resuscitated) she needed urgent blood transfusion, but it was denied by her parents. c) While transferring Kelly to the ICU the doctor forgot to keep Kelly on the ventilator while he steered her and left it in the prior room. This situation puts forth us three major points which could be labeled as the cause of Kelly’s death as their contribution is so close to her death that it is almost equal to the involvement, but according to a model of study conducted by Schlesinge and Tumber it was verified that such cases in Criminal Law sketch the involved personnel’s images very well.4 In order to analyze this situation it is better that an understanding of what various criminal law investigation procedures denote and signify. This has been done by using the most important model of unlocking Criminal Law in the paper which has been put forth by Martin and Storey, and Herring’s model of assessing a crime scene.5 Thus, through the above mentioned models the before mentioned scenario has been examined below and the reasons behind the death of Kelly have been evaluated. Therefore, both the models provided below have been examined side by side in order to achieve the required goal as the reason for Kelly’s death in this scenario mentioned by Abdul is not considered to be him but other conditions are held responsible. While referring to both the above provided models of unlocking a criminal investigation and the stages of law investigation, we come forth with the proceeding points of; Actus reus, Mens rea and Strict liability, from the former model. Whereas, that of culpability, harm, objectivism and subjectivism can be obtained from the latter model provided by Herring. Before both the models of understanding the reasons for Kelly’s death shall be examined, it is necessary that we first understand the classification of the people involved in the case with reference to both the scenarios. Another important provision for the verification of the defendants is put forth by Lafave, as he provides us with the actuality of the liability of external factors as that of Kelly’s case.6 According to Criminal Law and its proceedings, it is provided that the ‘actus reus’ is a term which means the act of guilt. This guilty act is referred to as such actions which lead towards the commission of crime, through physical proceedings or through threats of physical damage. The second in the running to the same category is the duty of care; which refers to the contracts or undertakings which are made in order to commit a crime. The ‘mens rea’ refers to the state of a guilty mind, where an individual falls in the category of having intentions of committing a crime. The third stage is of ‘strict liability’ which puts an individual in a state of negligence while a crime is committed or damage is done. Thus, these three stages have been put forth in the model provided by Martin and Storey which are useful for unlocking the criminal law investigation. But if Herring’s method and belief is understood we can elaborate that in criminal law fatal offenses have four major points of referencing. The first is ‘culpability’ in which the blame and its worth on the criminal have to be verified. The second is the ‘harm’ which determines how much of injury is caused and what the state of destruction is, this could relate to all the involved people of actus reus, mens rea and strict liability. The third tag is the ‘objectivism’ where the conduct of the criminal is to be judged and the last one is the ‘subjectivism’ which ponders upon the intentions and beliefs of the criminal. Thus, Herring himself has referred to his model as one of a complete ‘criminal liability’.7 This model serves a best example for resolving this case, as it advances such a method of formulation that makes it easier for the jurors to easily understand the distribution of responsible participants. Eisenberg and Wells have elucidated in their case learning how misconception of involvement leads to errors on the juror’s part.8 This situation can be labeled more as an intricate mixture of such actions which altogether could be held responsible for Kelly’s death, as it is obvious that Abdul after being arrested has elucidated that even though he was the actus reus and the mens rea but still he wasn’t the cause of Kelly’s death. By keeping both the models side by side, given below is a brief analysis of what the situation has proved and provided. 1. Actus Reus & Culpability: As Kelly was walking through the woods being out of breath, it was Abdul’s intention to hurt Kelly so he could snatch her bag and he had a knife with him which he had stabbed Kelly with, puncturing her lung and rupturing her kidney. Thus, this labels Abdul as the actus reus for physically attacking and harming Kelly and mens rea for intentionally stabbing her with all preparations. Similarly, when Kelly was taken to the hospital and needed blood transfusion, her parents refused the blood transfusion which worsened Kelly’s conditioned. But there wasn’t any intention in them harming their daughter neither did they actually do any physical damage, thus this keeps them out of this category. As far as the doctor is concerned, he can be placed as the actus reus as he unplugged the ventilator but not as the mens rea as he had no intentions of harming her. Delaney believes that in order to be both the actus reus the procedure must also “find a ‘home’ in a voluntary act that violates behavior prohibited by a pre-existing penal law”.9 So, this provides us with the fact that even though the act of the doctor wasn’t voluntary still it was one which harmed the patient further. With reference to the concept of culpability, it is definite that as Abdul himself stated he had all intentions of hurting Kelly to snatch her bag and did hurt her, hence he is culpable of the charge. But the parents and the doctor, even though seem to be innocent, but in actuality they aren’t. They are equally culpable of being a part of the cause of death as the parents refused the transfusion of blood and the doctor extracted the ventilator supply. 2. Mens Rea & Harm: Attacking Kelly intentionally puts Abdul as the mens rea but how does that leave the others behind? The answer to this question is that there is a huge relationship between the theories of both the writers i.e. the mens rea and harm. If there is a mens reas there is definitely going to be some harm which will be causes. But since there was no intention of harming Kelly among her parents or the doctor yet they harmed her it is verified that both the groups qualify for Herring’s model as a second point. But as far as the first model is concerned the Criminal Law formulations cannot yet label the parents and the doctor as the cause of Kelly’s death, as in a case study elaborated by Edwards, the points where the involved people lacked mens rea or they had lawful excuse still were condemned by the Law formulators.10 3. Strict Liability & Objectivism: The category of strict liability is in actuality the state in which many other reasons other than intention are responsible of an individual being involved in a crime. In this specific case of Kelly being dead, a large number of pointers direct us towards one major basic reason which is ‘strong negligence’. This can be verified if we elaborate that when Kelly required instant blood transfusion and they rejected the idea of it, it instantly puts them in the state of strict liability or strong disadvantage as they were ignorant of the importance of the consequence of their decision for their daughter’s life and didn’t make the decision which would have been proved positive and advantageous for their daughter’s life. But in accordance to the fact brought forth by Scott in his case study, it has been validated that proposing strict liability contract reduces contracting costs which disturbs the structure of criminal association of the acts of involved personnel11. Yet, this puts them equally responsible for neglecting what was needed at the moment and for deciding what they thought could have been better. Similarly, if we see that the idea of objectivism and note whether the conduct of the parents was harmful or not to their daughter we can elucidate that the answer is in affirmative. That their behavior did harm their daughter’s life and proved as a cause of death besides Abdul stabbing her. If we review the behavior and conduct of the doctor we can expound that with reference to the Scott’s findings that the state of forgetting to have brought the ventilator along with the bed as Kelly was steered to the other ICU room and unplugging it, the doctor is put in a strict liability as well.12 His behavior leads him towards being tagged as ignorant where his methodology should have been life saving it was life wrecking. If we judge the doctor by his conduct as Scott puts forth we can see that the answer again is in affirmative as he did harm Kelly and proved as a part of being a cause of her death by not providing the required medical care to her. Over here, two ideas of blame on the conduct can be brought up on the doctor. One, that even though Kelly’s parents did not accept the blood transfusion process the doctor knew what was best for Kelly and should have gone forth with the process and secondly, for being lethargic to have forgot keeping the ventilator with the bed. 4. Subjectivism: When it comes to the stage of subjectivism it can be verified that there is a need to judge the people who are involved on the basis of their beliefs, intentions and principles which resulted in the conduct. When referred to Abdul it has already been expounded that he had a full intention of hurting Kelly and snatching the purse from her and he physically did. But the most important part which is under complex perplexity is that if Abdul is not 100 percent held responsible for Kelly’s death then who shall be? The answer should be provided at the end of this report but first and foremost it is necessary that both the parents and the doctor shall be examined in the light of the point of subjectivism. The parents did not intend to hurt their Daughter; in fact they were thinking in the best of her regard and selected to reject the blood transfusion process. This even though did not turn out to be in her best regards and caused her harm. Yet, since their intentions were not of hurting Kelly it can be elucidated that the parents are not a part of one of Herring’s model and are eliminated from this category. According to the model of case formulations provided by Snook, Cullen, Bennell, Taylor and Gendreau, it was elucidated that various aspects of how the information is processed matter a lot, which can be understood with reference to Kelly’s death directly.13 As far as the doctor is concerned, he also obviously did not intend to hurt the patient and forgot to steer along the breathing apparatus and plugged it off. In fact, if it is described further we can elaborate that the doctor wanted Kelly to be present in an ICU so that she shall be examined in a better way. This puts the doctor also out of the category of subjectivism and eliminates the doctor as well from one point of Herring’s model. After the above side by side analysis it can be specified that in accordance to Martin and Storey’s model of using the Criminal Law and unlocking the procedures of commencing an investigation it is specified that Abdul was the major cause of Kelly’s death as it was due to his strike that Kelly faced a large amount of internal injuries which included sever hemorrhage inside the body due to the damage done to the lungs and kidneys.14 This in itself was the extreme cause for the loss of Kelly’s life but this does not mean that the parents have no roll in Kelly’s death what so ever. This model also labels Kelly’s parents as the Strict Liability which is a vital part of the criminal law. Thus, Kelly’s parents were the second cause of Kelly not being able to survive. On the other hand when it comes to Herring’s case, we can modify that both the parents along with the doctor besides Abdul were responsible in Kelly’s death. This stands that all the three people played a 1:1:1 role in causing the death of Kelly. In medical care and concern, it has been researched that dealing with the patients is the most important field of consideration. The groups or factions that rotate around the emergency zone of any ward play a vital role in setting the atmosphere in accordance to the patient’s equirements, for which developed appropriate emergency behavioral skills are required. Sections of nurses and fosterers along with doctors perform vitally as well hence, it was necessary that they knew what was to be done. Kneedler & Dodge stated that “Nursing ethics are an integral part of any nursing philosophy and perioperative patient care.”15 Hence, it was out of possibility for the doctor to have behaved in such a sluggish manner. Thus, in my perspective Abdul and the doctor’s lackluster was equally responsible for Kelly’s death, as the doctor’s responsibility is to do whatever is in the best of the patient’s consideration. It was necessary for the doctor to have kept it together even though it is human nature to feel a rush of emotions; which Kelly’s parents did when they knew their daughter was in a bad state of health. It was in accordance to the circumstances that they were thinking only of such things which would not further harm their daughter. Even though the doctor’s professional status require no such emotional contact, yet it was necessary for the doctor to have balanced appropriate skills during the communication which would have lead the parents towards a decision which was not as difficult to cope with. In fact, the parents themselves were doctors they could have understood well. According to Martin and Storey, the most important verification method of a crime is through the process of elucidating the parties involved in a crime. This method is used mostly when there is a perplex state of involvement of a single actus reus and mens rea, and more than one strict liabilities. In accordance to this method, there are five parties that are involved. These parties are grouped as; Principle offenders, Innocent agents, Secondary parties, Withdrawing parties and Assisting offenders. Each of these parties with reference to the cause of Kelly’s death and the people involved has been discussed below: I. Principle Offenders: The principle offender in Kelly’s death was Abdul, who was the actus reus and the mens rea both. He harmed Kelly physically as he had an intention of doing so. This method mostly focuses on the difficulties which a team might face in understanding and finding who the actual principle offender was. In the case study model provided by Robinson, the most important factor which can be applied to Kelly’s case is the articulated distributive principle as it states that it evaluates each engaged individual along with the acts of involvement, as we have already been provided with Abdul being the principle offender, thus this does not count in our search to understand how other individuals have been counted in.16 II. Innocent Agents: The second category consists of the people who have been proved innocent. This category may or may not include the teen agers who might have been questioned at the time they were interacted by the investigation authority. The important thing to keep in mind is that in this model of research with reference to criminal law the people who even though are not involved physically or intentionally in the crime but they are still considered to be a part of the offense if they are part of the strict liability category. III. Secondary Parties: In the case of Kelly’s death, the secondary parties of the crime can be labeled as the parents and the doctor. In my perspective mostly the doctor for not being able to perform well in a state where the role of the doctor counts the most. This state is also labeled as extended secondary liability. Basically, the secondary party aids or helps in committing a crime but in Kelly’s case it has been brought forth that the secondary party may also be one that has been a source of further worsening the situation. Thus, in my standpoint, the doctor is considered to be the secondary party. IV. Withdrawal or Assisting parties. In my outlook of the scenario, it is believed that the parents shall be labeled as the people who assisted the formulation of the harm which was done to Kelly’s health but then there role was not proven one of being guilty thus their characteristics withdrew from the case. This makes them guilty yet tags them in a not so safe zone. Therefore, through the help of understanding the criminal law and its formulation it can be concluded that the major role of hurting Kelly and causing the maximum damage was played by Abdul, yet it was the role of the doctor do have done as much as possible so that Kelly should have survived. Hence, at the end the ratio which labels the responsibility of Abdul, the parents and the doctor in Kelly’s death turns out to be 9:3:7 that of 10. Hence, in a state or territory where people live an organized life; violence can be avoided, the environment can remain subtle and calm, people can be at peace and the crime rate could be at such a rate which would hardly even affect the society only if the criminal law is practiced more and implemented better after the negative factors are eliminated and reduced. Bibliography Delaney, John. Learning Criminal Law as Advocacy Argument: Complete With Exam Problems & Answers. New York: John Delaney Publications, 2004. Edwards, Ian. “Banksy's Graffiti: A Not-so- simple Case of Criminal Damage?” Journal of Criminal Law 73, no. 4 (2009): 345-361. Eisenberg, Theodore and Wells, Martin T. “Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases.” HeinOnline 70, (1994): n.pg. Fletcher, George P. Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Herring, Jonathan. Criminal Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Kneedler, Julia A. and Dodge, Gwen H. Perioperative Patient Care: The Nursing Perspective. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett, 1994. Lafave, Wayne R. Principles of Criminal Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions. Minnesota: West Publishing, 1978. Martin, Jacqueline and Storey, Tony. Unlocking Criminal Law. Abingdon: Hodder Education, 2007. Robinson, Paul H., “Distributive Principles of Criminal Law: Who Should Be Punished How Much?” University Of Pennsylvania, (2008): 1- 204. Schlesingerm Philip and Tumber, Howard. Reporting Crime: The Media Politics of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Scott, Robert E. “In (Partial) Defense of Strict Liability in Contract.” Michigan Law Review 107, (2008): 35. Snook, Brent, Cullen, Richard M., Bennell, Craig, Taylor, Paul J. and Gendreau Paul. “The Criminal Profiling Illusion: What's Behind the Smoke and Mirrors?” Criminal Justice and Behavior 35, no. 10 (2008): 1257-1276. Singer, Richard G. and La Fond, John Q. Criminal Law. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2010. Tong, Stephen, Bryant, Robin P. and Horvath, Miranda A. H. Understanding Criminal Investigation. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Read More