Murder Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Murder - hear ExampleHowever, it is a fact in sinful law, that the wrong intent or the mens rea of the offender to be convicted for the commission of any of the abuses under the Code requires a different degree of blameworthiness which is dependent on the nature of the crime. Hence, the elements of these two crimes ar to be treated differently. The issue that presented before us now that involve to be resolved is The Mens rea for murder is too narrow in certain respects and too unsubtle in others. The fault element for involuntary manslaughter is simply too wide. To differentiate these two crimes, first issue that needs to be done is to identify the elements for the commission of each of the crimes. We start with the crime of Murder. Alan W. Norrie has reported that for the crime of murder, the case of R. V. Woolin 1 should be highlighted as the basis of defining the plan of the accused. In this case, the House has jilted the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that foresigh t of a substantial risk of death or sound bodily harm could in certain circumstances be an alternative mens rea that can quality to intention of the accused. While in the case of R. V. ... However, there exists a conflict in the Woolin case which leaves the runnel for the criminal intention too specific. In the event that in the future a crime of murder is committed, the victim or his family shall be prejudiced by the conviction of the criminal to a lesser offence, carrying with it a lesser penalty because of non-compliance with the attendant circumstances as stated in the Woolin case, to make him liable for murder. Thus, it gives the criminal the privilege to demand for a lesser penalty and escape a portion of the imprisonment. Moreover, there are two issues which are left unanswered by the Woolin case, which concern the moralistic basis for convicting a criminal for murder. In one, the foresight of virtual certainty may be regarded as morally under-inclusive, while in the othe r, it is over-inclusive. These problems, relating to issues of good and bad motive, originated from the unstable moral core at the heart of mens rea, which the dominant subjectivist approach ignores at its peril.5 The principle laid down by Woolin case caused quite a stir because foreseeability and intention are the elements used to prove the degree of culpability of the offender. The terms direct and indirect intention are minded(p) their conservative meanings of purpose, aim or object and necessary means to an end or side-effect foreseen as around certain to occur whether desired or not. The argument of Norrie is that in the process of legal and moral judgment in the criminal law, these terms cannot be fully separated from broader issues of motive or later(a) intention, understood as the moral backdrop to the intentions that are formed, and generally seen as irrelevant to culpability6. Therefore, if the