QUESTION

 

Essay Question:

“The idea that a crime ought to include a measure of culpable intent has strong historical grounding; however, homicide law seems to fly in the face of this. There is an urgent need for reform.”

To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Word length:3000 words

 

 

ANSWER

 

Assignment cover sheet and feedback form

To be completed by student	To be completed by marker
Class: English Criminal Law	Marker’s name: Dr J B MacLean
Assignment Title: Homicide Law	Word count penalty:
Student Registration: 201821206	Late submission penalty:
Word count: 2991

If you would welcome feedback on a particular issue or point, please take the opportunity in the space below to communicate this to the marker.

To the marker: in addition to any other comments, I would particularly appreciate feedback on the following aspect of my work:

CRITERIA	MARKER’S COMMENTS
Argument Relevant to question? Demonstrates an Understanding of key Issues and reading?	It is very difficult to identify the argument that is being presented. The narrative through which it ought to be presented is often very difficult, and at times impossible, to understand. This means that identifying and explaining key issues becomes very challenging.
Organisation of material Logical? Does it allow the Argument to develop?	The materials are presented in a very unimaginative way, simply presenting case and statutory provisions, one after another. To a large extent, in an essay like this, it is not the moiunt of information you provide but what you do with it that is important. At the very least, you must address the question in the terms in which it is set and respond directly to it. In the end, the answer does not appear to do this.
Interpretation Reading interpreted correctly? Good level of analysis?	It is not entirely clear that the materials have been understood correctly; at any rate, they are not presented, analysed and interrogated, and employed within any form of debate, which is really the whole point of the exercise. It is from such a debate over the issues, with reference to the academic and judicial opinions, that a reasoned response to the question could arise.
Sources Breadth and relevance? Adequate referencing?	Part of the difficulty here might well be that the range of materials consulted are insufficient for the purpose of engaging this question fully and robustly. The footnotes consist mostly of statutory references and some case references, as well as a few textbook references etc. There is no real evidence of any serious engagement with the literature.
Presentation Grammar/Writing style? Proof reading?	Very difficult to read and understand, with numerous grammatical and spelling errors. I suggest that you get someone to proof read your coursework prior to submission for assessment.
Overall/additional Feedback (if applicable)
FINAL MARK	25 /100
PLEASE NOTE THIS MARK IS PROVISIONAL (ALL MARKS SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY THE EXTERNAL EXAMINER AND THE EXAM BOARD)

“THE IDEA THAT A CRIME OUGHT TO INCLUDE A MEASURE OF CULPABLE INTENT HAS STRONG HISTORICAL GROUNDING; HOWEVER, HOMICIDE LAW SEEMS TO FLY IN THE FACE OF THIS. THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR REFORM.”

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT?

Introduction

Culpable intent refers to death of victim intentionally as well as recklessly and knowingly. Criminal law has been implemented to control over incident of murder over a whole nation. The current study focuses on the agreement and the disagreement of the fact that culpable intent and importance of considering crime by a culprit needs to be considered in a criminal law. Along with that, it discusses appropriate reasons for suggesting homicide law as well as necessity.

Explaining meaning of culpable intent

Losing self control and pre-planning based on murder both are against well-being of individual and community due to which penalty and prison of defendant can be announced. Issues related to culpable intent and reform of homicide law for the purpose of getting right decision related to prison of criminal. Homicide principles need to be reformed by including information regarding unintentional and intentional murder of persons. On the other hand, criminal law is fully based on death of person. It is required to include death of person by other persons having unstable mental situation and forcing by someone. Key issue is lack of proper understanding about reason of doing murder including loss of self control and self protection into homicide law¹. On the contrary, criminal law of UK is fully based on finding out reasons of doing criminal activities whether having intention or forcing by someone². Deep analysis regarding self molestation and protection as well as losing self control and unstable mental situation are not included in UK homicide law. Based on which, it can be demonstrated that changes in principles of homicide law are essential for allowing judges to take right decision related to period of prison and death of criminal. These will also allow to consider the psychological stages of the accused while declearing final judgement.

Culpable intent in UK generally indicates killing a person in an illegal way having full of intention and without intention. Mens rea is the part of culpable intent which indicates doing criminal activity intentionally and knowingly. Mens rea is the mental state of a person due to which the person is forced to do criminal activity intentionally. Taking strategy regarding the way of doing criminal activity and killing a person intentionally are illegal ways due to breaching Government legislation based on criminal activity³. Intention is the strategic idea to carry out the plan properly and evaluate estimated outcome⁴. On the contrary, doing criminal activity unintentionally can be the reason of breaching Government legislation based on Criminal Law⁵. I agree to the fact that combination of mental element and physical element results death of a person due to which measurement of culpable intent is important. Guilty mind and guilty act both are reasons of resulting death of a person due to which Government legislation based on criminal law is breached significantly⁶.

Importance of considering culpable intent

If a person acts knowingly then it indicates doing criminal activities recklessly⁷. On the other hand, without intention, doing criminal activity cannot be committed to criminal laws due to describing about reckless acts⁸. Without having intention to do murder of a person is not considered as criminal activities. This is because of considering unintentionally doing criminal activities. Thus, issues related to life time prison and death of criminal is raised due to not including in homicide law. In case of doing criminal activities, judges could consider strong punishment to criminal so as to reduce rate of criminal activities over a country.

Criminal Act 2003 indicates period of spending life and death of criminals can be varied on the basis of level of criminal activities⁹. However, homicide law does not include level of criminal activities and consideration of intentionally and unintentionally criminal activities due to which changes in principles of homicide law is essential.

As per guidelines of Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, death penalty and prison for minimum 15 years are necessary in case of having intention to do criminal activity¹⁰. Section 2 of the following act indicates cancellation of death penalty for all cases except murder in UK which is caused by piracy as well as high treason.

Section 1 and 2(a) of Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, clearly describes that two capital offences such as royal dockyards as well as espionage are reasons of doing criminal activity in UK. However, death penalty for murder has been abolished in UK for persons having age under 18. Section 3 of Murder Act 1965 clearly indicates that life imprisonment is accurate sentence for adults in terms of giving death penalty¹¹.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 indicates different Government legislation related to power of police officers as well as bail and disclosure in case of committing with criminal activities. Under section 4.1 (b) of Criminal Justice Act 2003 denotes that starting points for serving minimum periods in prison are 12 as well as 15 and whole life before granting permission of release¹².

Under Section 54 and 55 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009, defense of persuasion has been abolished and reformed by partial defense to criminal activities consisting loss of control¹³. Under Section 56 (a) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 indicates that doing criminal activity intentionally and losing control over activity both can be reasons of spending minimum period in prison. Under section 54(1) (a) of the following legislation, loss of control is the reason of having unstable mental state which causes culpable intent¹⁴. Section 54 of the Government legislation indicates criminal activity is caused by losing self control due to which self control has qualified process of trigger. Due to which, losing self control and doing murder are reasons of violating Government legislation based on Criminal law¹⁵.

Under Section 4.1(a ) and section 4(c) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 refers mens rea is the reason of causing bodily harm intentionally due to which life long sentence has been developed¹⁶. Under Section 54 (1)(a) of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 points out that loss of control should be the reason of qualifying trigger and purpose of doing criminal activity needs to be understood properly by the Criminal Court. Based on that, legal decision can be announced to protect whole community from criminal activities. Judge could consider proper reason of losing self control in specific circumstance for announcing legal decision on the basis of death penalty and punishment.

Section 2.2 (a) and under section 4(c) of UK criminal Law Act 1977 clearly indicates that consideration of wrong activities is against the whole community. Due to which, losing self control does not indicate meaningless description in the life long sentence. Section 3 of the following act states that doing criminal activity is harmful for whole community rather than for an individual due to which demand of death penalty to defendant is legal. In addition I would like to support my agreement by stating that Section 4.1(a) of Criminal Law Act 1977 clearly points out that doing criminal activity and planning on the basis of murdering victim are forbidden as well as punishable due to involving illegal technique¹⁷. Taking strategy regarding the way of resulting death of a person and planning about criminal activities is fully against the wellbeing of whole community¹⁸. On the other hand, I disagree abd feel that losing self control and doing criminal activities unintentionally both can be considered as unstable mental condition of victim¹⁹.

Exploring contradiction in homicide law

In case of DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290, plaintiff has claimed in British Court about illegal and criminal activities due to breaching guidelines of Criminal Act 1987. Along with that, plaintiff has claimed broken bones as well as permanent disability and overflow of blood are reasons of doing criminal activities intentionally²⁰. On the other hand, defendant has argued that permanent disability and broken bones are caused due to lack of awareness of victim. Defendant has argued that losing self control and unintentional criminal activities cannot be considered as breaching of Government law based on criminal law. Going deeper into this statement given by plaintiff and defendant, Judge has announced final decision in favor of plaintiff due to involving culpable intent. Along with that, Section 2 of the following act clearly points out that making plan related to criminal activity is against the well-being of whole community due to which death penalty can be charged to defendant. Thus, it is clear that changing guidelines based on lack of awareness regarding criminal activities and its impact on human being into homicide law is essential for getting freedom. Culpable intent is the reason of losing self control and making strategic planning regarding the way of murdering a person as well as conducting the plan appropriately. Based on culpable intent, criminal law is varied. On the contrary, homicide law is fully based on death of person by criminal activities of a person rather than considering intention and unintentional activities as well as forcing by someone.

R vs Cunningham [1982] AC 566 HL points out that breaking arm and taking dangerous action against other person can be the reason of intentional criminal activities due to which severe punishment of defendant and death penalty are essential²¹.

Law commission of 2006 has discussed that first degree murder indicates killing a person intentionally and making appropriate planning regarding serious injury on body of victim. Along with that, Law commission of England and Wales has stated that reckless action taken by defendant should not mean murder of a person. House of Lords discusses that defendant should not follow guilty action due to breaching law based on criminal act and guidelines of protecting whole community. Breaking arm and doing murder of a person by losing self control can be reason of strong criminal activities. Based on that, reformation into homicide law is necessary due to focusing on losing self control or unstable physholigical situations.

In case of R vs. Thornton [1992] 1 All ER 306 CA, plaintiff has plunged sharpened knife to her alcoholic husband due to throwing abusive comments towards her²². On the other hand, her husband has refused to give mental support to his wife which is required at the time of getting relief from woman syndrome. Family of her husband has claimed in the Court that doing criminal activity intentionally can be the reason of losing self control. However, defendant has argued that losing self control is for the purpose of suffering from woman syndrome and failing to get support from husband at the time of needs. On the other hand, plaintiff has argued that losing self control due to lack of support from alcoholic husband do not mean murder of a person. By understanding properly of these statements, Judge of British Court has announced final decision in favor of defendant due to involving illegal activity by plaintiff.

I agree to the fact state by Section 4(a) and 4(b) of Criminal Justice Act 1987 that doing criminal activities intentionally is the way of breaching Government legislation based on criminal Activity²³. Along with that, Under Section 4.1 (a) of the following act indicates that losing self control and pre-planning based on murder both are against well-being of individual and community due to which penalty and prison of defendant can be announced. In addition I agree thst lack of suddenness does not mean murder in the following case due to involving pre-plan based on the way of doing criminal activity²⁴. Judge of British Court has also announced that in case of having history of diseases, proper medical solution can be provided by medical practitioners. However, doing criminal activity and losing self control do not support legal guidelines based on Criminal Law of UK. Reformation into homicide law can be managed by including necessary information regarding mental support at the time of needs and effect of losing mental support. On the contrary, criminal law is fully based on death of person and forcing by someone. In the following context, it can be discussed that without having mental support, a person is forced to lose self control. Thus, inclusion of deep analysis related to losing self control and doing criminal activities into homicide law is essential. Changes on the basis of defense of molestation is required into homicide law due to avoiding wrong decision taken by judge and freedom of criminal.

Reason of losing self control is creating high stress by someone due to which an individual is forced to do murder. However, homicide law of UK does not consider certain necessary requirements such as reason of losing self control as well as forcing to do murder which have already mentioned in criminal and Justice Act 2003²⁵.

R vs. Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889 CA is based on death of alcoholic husband. This case is against the guidelines of Criminal law and involves defense of molestation due to which final decision has been gone in favor of defendant²⁶. Defendant has claimed in British Court that his wife has driven to kill with knife by losing self control. However, Plaintiff has argued in British Court that her husband would beat her and hit with hot iron if she does not provide required money. Along with that, plaintiff has claimed her husband has created enough stress on her mind by threatening continuously due to which she has been forced to lose self control. By analyzing deeply of all related points, Judge has announced final decision in favor of defendant due to involving illegal action taken by her husband²⁷. I agree that as per the court which has analyzed that lady does not have any previous medical history due to which question related to unstable mental condition cannot be raised. Along with that, her alcoholic husband has created higher stress on mental condition by threatening daily due to which she has taken sudden decision regarding murder. R vs Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 is based on loss of self control and killing own wife. Plaintiff has claimed to the Court that lady has been forced to meet to him with all children²⁸. On the other hand, defendant has argued that his wife has described her sexual relations due to which he has lose his self control at the time of meeting with his wife. On the contrary, plaintiff argued losing self control immediately and taking decision regarding murder at the time of meeting with wife do not support UK criminal law 2009. Judge has announced final decision in favor of plaintiff by analyzing deeply of all related statements. Due to involving plan based on criminal activity and intention of defendants, final decision of judge has gone in favor of plaintiff.

Section 2 of Homicide Act 1957 points out that abnormality and unstable mental situation is the significant causing factor of killing a person²⁹. In the following case, husband of lady has been suffered from mental stress due to having high work pressure in the workplace due to which question related to losing of self control can be raised³⁰.

In case of DPP vs. Newbury & Jones [1976] 2 All ER 365 HL, two boys have thrown paving slab to rail guard which results death of the guard. The plaintiff has claimed in the Court that affecting from drinks and drugs is the reason of losing self control which forces them to throw paving slab towards mailing guard³¹. On the other hand, defendant has argued that they have thrown paving slab unintentionally due to which death of guard cannot be considered as criminal activity. Finally Judge has announced decision in favor of plaintiff due to losing of self control and affecting from drugs and drinks. As per section 54 and section 55 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009, losing self control by drinking and making plan based on criminal activity are against Government legislation due to which death penalty can be charged to defendant.

Andrews vs. D.P.P. [1937] AC 576 HL is based on careless driving and killing victim. The plaintiff has claimed in the British Court that careless driving is nothing about unlawful act for the purpose of manslaughter³². On the contrary, I disagree with the above fact and agree with the defendant that recklessly driving is against the homicide law due to losing self control. Court has given final decision in favor of plaintiff due to involving loss of self control and culpable intent. Criminal law 2003 clearly indicates losing self control by drinking and making key plan to do a murder are involved in criminal activities intentionally. However, homicide law of UK does not bother about reason of losing self control at certain time and forcing by someone to do criminal activities due to which changes are necessary to get accurate opinion by judges on certain circumstances³³. Consideration of death penalty and self control are required for reforming principles into homicide law³⁴.

Identifying necessity of sort of reform

Section 4 (a) and 4(b) of Criminal Justice Act 1987 can be reformed by including factors on the basis of abnormality and unstable medical condition. In case of having unstable mental condition, defendants can discuss with medical practitioner for getting prescribed format³⁵. Based on which, decision can be changed in case of involving with criminal activities. Proper medical evidence needs to be carried in case of claiming against plaintiff. Section 2 of the following act could be reformed by including the point regarding claim of judicial bench against evidence of expert. Thus, it would assist in deciding final decision in case of having loss of self control as well as unstable mental situation. Under section 2.1 (a) of Criminal Justice Act 1987 could include significant factors such as consideration of culpable intent and the way of involving into criminal activities³⁶. Based on which, judge would be able to take final accurate decision on the basis of reason of criminal activity.

Section 54 and Section 55 of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 could be reformed by including two different factors such as proper understanding nature of conduct and rational judgment³⁷. Based on which, Judge would be able to take accurate decision on the basis of death penalty and criminal offending cases. I agree with the fact that proper understanding nature of conducting criminal act can lead to take accurate decision on the basis of impact of activity on community³⁸.

Section 3 and section 4 of Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 could be reformed by including factors regarding culprit of manslaughter and reasons of involving with criminal activity³⁹. Thus, it would assist in gathering information related to mental condition and causing of death with or without intention.

Conclusion

Thus, it can be concluded that constructive intent refers to unintentional activities which cause death of a person. Acts reus describes that death of a person is not caused unless mind of culprit is guilty due to which questions arise on the basis of breaching criminal law. On the other hand, mens rea denotes to awareness of culprit regarding the way of killing and outcome before doing criminal activity. Thus through negligence and dangerous criminal activities, murder is happening. There needs to addition of provision were in measure for culpable intent needs to be considered and based on this criminal proceeding needs to be judged.

Reference List

Alex Piquero, Delphine Theobald, and David Farrington, The overlap between offending trajectories, criminal violence, and intimate partner violence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology [2014] PL 303

Alexander Sarch, Willful Ignorance, Culpability, and the Criminal Law: John’s L. Rev. [2014] PL202

Andrews vs. D.P.P. [1937] AC 576 HL

Ben Bradford, Andy Myhil, Triggers of change to public confidence in the police and criminal justice system: Findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales panel experiment. Criminology & Criminal Justice [2015] PL309

Child, John, John J. Child, and David Ormerod, Smith & Hogan’s essentials of criminal law (Oxford University Press, USA, 2015)

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, 18^th November 2009) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/contents> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, 18^th November 2009) <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/pdfs/ukpga_20090025_en.pdf> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

Criminal Justice Act 1987 (Criminal Justice Act 1987, 20^th June 1987) <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/38/contents> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Criminal Justice Act 2003, 18^th November 2003) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/contents> Accessed on 28^th March 2019.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Criminal Justice Act 2003, 18^th November 2003)<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/pdfs/ukpga_20030044_en.pdf> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

Criminal Law Act 1977 (Criminal Law Act 1977, 18^th September 1977)<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 (HL)

DPP vs. Newbury & Jones [1976] 2 All ER 365 HL

Eric Johnson, Understanding General and Specific Intent: Eight Things I Know for Sure. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., [2015] PL 521

Glazebrook, Peter, Blackstone’s Statutes on Criminal Law 2015-2016 (Oxford University Press, USA, 2015)

Homicide Act, 1957 (Homicide Act, 1957 , 18^th September 1957)<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1957/11/pdfs/ukpga_19570011_en.pdf> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

Homicide Act, 1957 (Homicide Act, 1957 , 18^th September 1957)<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/contents> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

Horder, Jeremy and Fitz-Gibbon, when sexual infidelity triggers murder: examining the impact of homicide law reform on judicial attitudes in sentencing. The Cambridge Law Journal [2015] PL 315

Luke David Graham, Austerity Policies as Crimes against Humanity: An Assessment of UK Social Security Policy since 2008. [2018] PL5

Matthew Dyson, Criminal Law 2018-2019 (28^th edn, 2018) 480

Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 (Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, 25^th February 1965) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/71/contents> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 (Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, 25^th February 1965) <http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LIF-2015-0044/LIF-2015-0044.pdf> Accessed on 18^th February 2019.

R vs Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2

R vs Cunningham [1982] AC 566 HL

R vs. Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889 CA (HL)

R vs. Thornton [1992] 1 All ER 306 CA

.

Looking for best Law Assignment Help. Whatsapp us at +16469488918 or chat with our chat representative showing on lower right corner or order from here. You can also take help from our Live Assignment helper for any exam or live assignment related assistance