Criminal Law Study Set 2
Quiz 5 :
Defenses to Criminal Liability
Brief summary of the case: Mr.H and Mr.P were prisoners, one day Mr.H poured scalding oil on Mr.P.Then Mr.P became disfigured and Mr.H was punished with a sentence of 33 months imprisonment.Mr.H tried to justify his attack as a measure of self-defense.Mr.H said, Mr.P was a bully and he was trying to take advantage from other inmates.Mr.P coerced other inmates to get favor in terms of sex, commissary and food. The day before the incident, Mr.P slammed Mr.H to the ground in front of a guard.The guard did nothing for protecting Mr.H from Mr.P.Mr.P threatened Mr.H many times before and on the day of oil incident.Mr.P informed Mr.H that he will continue his beating in the afternoon. 1) Facts showing Mr.H is entitled for the defense of self-defense: Mr.H is entitled for the defense of self-defense, because he poured oil on Mr.P in order to protect himself from Mr.P.Before the incident, Mr.P threatened Mr.H many times.Mr.H says, Mr.P was a bully who was exercising coercion over other fellow inmates.He was trying to take advantage from other inmates in all kinds like sex, commissary and food. Mr.P pressured Mr.H to take the position of food preparer.When Mr.H refused, Mr.P threatened Mr.H to make him his bitch.After that, several times jostling occurred in the prison and one day Mr.P cornered Mr.H in a bathroom.The day before the oil incident, Mr.P slammed Mr.H to the ground from the vicinity of a guard and the guard did nothing. After the day of slamming, Mr.P said to Mr.H that he will continue the beating in the afternoon.All these facts are evidencing that, Mr.H poured oil on Mr.P in order to protect him. 2) Court's definition for imminent danger: Imminent danger is the threat of harm.It will vary according to the context in which it is used.Some laws permit the application of deadly force when an imminent danger occurs. Considerations given to find out such a danger include the criminal's apparent intention to make death or great body injury, the device used by the criminal to cause death or injury.The ability and opportunity of the attacker to use the means that results in death or injury to the body will also be considered. 3) Court's arguments for ruling against imminent danger: Court argues that, any activity done in response to a danger or threat will not be punished.The activity should be done for self-defense purpose, which means in order to safeguard him from the danger of another person.If the proofs are conveying the existence of the threat or any other danger, the person who has responded towards it would not be punished. Self-defense should qualify its elements which involve unprovoked attack, necessity, proportionality and reasonable belief. Conclusion: If any attack happened with an intention to safeguard a person or for self-defense purpose, then it will not be treated as illegal.The self-defense should qualify certain factors like necessity, unprovoked attack, reasonable belief and proportionality.
Brief summary of the case: One day Mr.TC, Mr.DC, Mr.JR and Mr.BA were travelling in a train.From another station, Mr.G boarded into the train and sat in the same car where the young were sitting.After that, Mr.TC approached Mr.G and asked to give five dollars.Suddenly, Mr.G taken his unlicensed gun and fired the four people once.Then he fired Mr.DC again, it severed his spinal cord and became paralyzed. The victims except Mr.DC fully recovered.Mr.G surrendered in the court and said he knows that the young did not have guns, still he was afraid.It happened because of the prior experience of Mr.G of being maimed. 1) If professor F justifies Mr.G in shooting or not: Professor F is not justifying Mr.G's shooting towards the four young.Professor F is saying that, Mr.G could have solved it easily without any violence.Mr.G can either dissolve the situation simply by saying he do not have five dollar. Instead of dissolving the situation simply, he fired the people.Since, the victims did not show any violence or weapons towards Mr.G, it cannot be treated as a case for self-defense or deadly force. 2) Circumstances in which people can use deadly force: Deadly force is a force, which, when used by a person causes or he should know or knows it would create a risk of causing serious body injury or harm or death.In the following circumstances, the deadly force can be used: • For self-defense purpose • To provide defense for a third person • For preventing commission of a crime • For the fulfillment of law enforcement 3) Mr.X's opinion towards the circumstances in which deadly force can be exercised: Mr.X agrees with the applicability of deadly force and the circumstances in which it can be applied.Deadly force can be applied for self-defense purpose, in order to ensure safety for third person, for preventing a crime and fulfilling legal enforcement.These circumstances are important and should require protection from the legal system. 4) Mr.X adds or removes the following circumstances in which deadly force can be exercised: Mr.X adds the case of known criminals like terrorists.The persons who are proven as terrorist or traitor, the public should be given the right to use deadly defense against them.It is suggested, to ensure public security as well as national security. 5) Whether Mr.G's shots a preemptive action or retaliation or for self-protection: Mr.G's shot was purely a preemptive action.Mr.G knows that the young people are not having any weapons and they were not violent towards Mr.G, still he responded violently.Instead of firing them, it was possible to handle the situation simply. Mr.G does not have any retaliation towards any one among the four.Because of his fear, he shot the people and it cannot be treated as self-protection purpose. Conclusion: In this case, Mr.G will not get consideration of self-defense.The firing was simply a preemptive action and it does not involve any violence from the part of the victims.Mr.G is having another issue, because he fired the young people using unlicensed gun, which comes under criminal possession.
Case summary: After getting divorced from her first husband, Mrs.P married Mr.M.Mrs.P is having two daughters from her first marriage, they were Ms.C and Ms.L.during the first year after marriage Mrs.P showed the signs of psychological problems.She got hospitalized and released when she responded to the treatment.Mr.M compelled Mrs.P to take more medicines than prescribed. Mr.M was behaving indecently towards the two daughters of Mrs.P.He placed Ms.C in to a room and she was not allowed to contact anyone else.After that, Mr.M created many violent issued with Mrs.P and her daughters and Mrs.P admitted in to a hospital for a treatment for toxic psychosis.One day when Mr.M threatened Mrs.P, she killed her husband with a gun.Then, jury found Mrs.P is not guilty. 1) The following are the circumstances, which decide Mrs.P was in an imminent danger: After the marriage, Mr.M torturing physically Mrs.P, he hit and kicked her several times.This torturing resulted in to certain psychological issues in Mrs.P.When Mrs.P discharged from the hospital, Mr.M compelled Mrs.P to take heavy dosage of medication than prescribed.Mr.M behaved indecently towards Mrs.P's daughters. Then, when Mrs.P's two daughters moved away from her, Mr.M compelled Mrs.P to have sex with him for several times.Mrs.P again was hospitalized and this time the problem was due to the heavy dosage of medication.Mr.M's words implied that, he is going to kill; it enhanced the fear in her.These circumstances proved Mrs.P was in an imminent danger. 2) Court majority's argument against imminent danger and dissent's argument for imminent danger: There are arguments that show the absence of imminent danger to Mrs.P.Some opines that, it is a planned murder because Mrs.P herself told the nurse her desire to go with Mr.M.Mrs.P voluntarily agreed to go with Mr.M.prior to the shooting of Mr.M; Mrs.P loaded the gun and kept under mattress.She kept the car in the driveway and ensured the access to key. On the other hand, some were on the view that, Mr.M was an evil husband and she killed him because Mr.M threatened Mrs.P.She was very afraid regarding the behavior of her husband. 3) Statement relevant to battered women domestic violence case: All the four statements are related to battered women domestic violence case.First and second statements say it is not a justifiable murder case.A women killed her husband due to retaliation will not be justified in any circumstance. Third and fourth statements say if situation compels a person to do something wrong, the court should consider the circumstances.The law should protect the person's natural rights and obligations. 4) Whether Mrs.P killed Mr.M in self-defense, as a preemptive action or as retaliation: Mrs.P killed Mr.M for her defense; she was suffering a lot since early days of her marriage.She was very much conscious about her daughter's life, because Mr.M behaved cruelly towards them too. The day before and in the morning of the incident, Mr.M's words were conveying that she would not live long.The statement enhanced her fear.She knew that her husband will not behave fairly towards her and he will continue his brutal behavior.These were the reasons behind the murder. Conclusion: Mrs.P killed her husband with a gun for her self-defense.She became intolerable towards the behavior of her husband; it affected her both mentally and physically.The crime was justifiable because it was purely due to the mental pressure caused to Mrs.P by Mr.M.