assignment 6

1)      Criminal Law is where it is The State you committed the crime in or being accused of committing the crime in V. You. For example, The People of New York V. Plaxico Buress. Tort Law is the civil part of criminal acts. Where it’s a person v. person. Although OJ Simpson was found not guilty of killing his ex wife and her fiancé. He lost the civil suit in which he was being sued for wrongful death.

2)      Strict liability is where someone is guilty for someone else’s injury, regardless if it was a negligent act or not. The person could have gone out of their way to make sure everything was safe but they still got hurt. Negligence is where someone was negligent and someone else got hurt. Like a store employee left a spill in the aisle after seeing it and someone fell and hurt themselves.

3)      It means that because the store clerk left the wet floor and did not clean it up, it made another person slip on it and hurt themselves. Basically because of one act another one happened.

4)      Causation is the relationship between someone’s conduct and a result.

5)      I agree with the Court’s decision in the case, because it was fisher’s first action which caused the rest to happen. Like the Snow Ball effect.

6)      I agree with the ruling because they should not be responsible for a third parties action. They were injured because  of someone else not the LIRR.

Clemency

We understand that Stanley Tookie Williams has renounced his gang affiliations and has worked as an activist against them after his incarceration. On behalf of the state of California we can not allow clemency to be granted. Even through all his good works it does not bring his victims back. They were murdered due to organized gang activity. What if Mr. Williams was never caught or even convicted, would he have changed and turned a new leaf? Or is it because he is on Death Row, Mr. Williams is trying to make amends for his crimes against society? We can not assume that he changed because he truly wanted too. The crimes were committed and the Crips are major part of gang related society today, the cause of Mr. Williams. Clemency must be denied.

Wendigo Prosecutor

The defendant should be charged with manslaughter and be found guilty by a jury of his/her peers. The court recognizes the private practices and beliefs of the Indian Tribe, although that does not warrant killing someone in cold blood because of what you thought you saw. The defendant should have fully investigated before acting on their own. Even if the defendant were to call the authorities, it would have been handled in a proper manner. Due to the wrong judgement of the defendant an innocent persons life was taken.

VooDoo Case

Technically Victor could be convicted under these circumstance, since he does fit the definition for "Attempt". Although, not one District Attorney's office will charge him with anything. There are more elements to the case. Due to the fact that he did not physically harm her or even cause her death. It would like a follower of the Catholic faith praying to God to smite down someone. Then they happen to get hit by lightning and die. He can not be charged even if he confessed to praying to God to do this, no matter how much he believes he is guilty. The D.A. knows he/she cannot get an unanimous guilty verdict of a belief of voodoo.

Kadish disagrees that the law is defined in outcomes of an event. Kadish does not like the fact that someone will get less time if they become unsuccessful in comminting the crime. I do not agree with Kadish's outlook on this. The law cannot play the role of Psychic and live in the mystical land of 'What Ifs'. The Law deals in the realm of concrete evidence and sound theory. You get punished for what you have done, not what you could have done. It sounds like Kadish would love to live in the time of Minority Report where people are arrested before they commit the crime.

Kadish would criticize the 'harm doctrine' saying that it rewards criminals for failure to complete the crime. They should be charged and convicted of the full crime whether or not they completed the crime. He also states that it would prevent crime more if this was the law, especially if we did reward failures. I Disagree with him again, simply put, on murder charges you can not be charged with murder if there is not a dead body to account for. That theory just sounds ridiculous to me. On minor crimes the punishment is more severe depending on the crime.

According to Kadish we still have the harm doctrine because of our moral and ethical views. We as a society want to get justice after a crime is committed. As well as having a hard time to change beliefs based on our emotional ties. Once again I do not believe this is the case. If as a society we were so hell bent on getting justice and retribution then every state will still have the death penalty, with the eye for an eye attitude like Hammurabi believed which he thought prevented crime.

Peterman Defense

Steven Peterman, can not be charged with attempted rape. In New York State, there is no crime of attempted rape. It was one of the sorest subjects in Criminal Law. Even when involving a minor, there are not any crimes on the book. My Client Mr. Peterman is willing to plea to promoting child pornography, and having the child pornographic paraphernalia on his person. There was not any physical contact between my client and the ten year old girl. Due to the fact that the girl was imaginary. Depending on the conversation between the imaginary girl and my client he may be free from all charges due to entrapment. If the police invited and enticed my client to meet each other then thats entrapment. My client did not have the actus reus in this crime. No act was actually committed. Although a sexual crime involving a minor does not need mens rea to prosecute. "Statutory Rape'. There was no rape committed and/or crimes committed against the ten year old. 

Life Boat Question Three

Part Three of "Life Boat"

What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say?

A Utilitarian Philosopher would have argued that what the crew did was for the greater good. That sacrificing 5 people guaranteed the safety of the two dozen others that were on the lifeboat. The lesser sacrifice of 5 people saved the majority, which would be the utilitarian main argument. Although, on the other hand, the view of deontology would oppose the view of the utilitarian. Deontology would argue the fact that they cannot predict future consequences, they have to operate doing the right thing. Whatever is morally right, it is their duty to do that. They would have saved the 5 people still in the water at any risk or cost because it would be the morally right thing to do.

"Life Boat"

. Do you think that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder (see the penal code on p. 2) or were they justified in their action? (See definition on p. 2). Why or why not?

I do not believe that they are guilty of murder. It all comes down to the interpretation of the Penal Code and Statutes of their localities. I am a Law Major and plan on becoming a Lawyer, Rule number one when studying to become a lawyer, emotions, sadness, and morality should not play a role in judgement. My Criminal Law Professor used a quote that I love very much when describing the Law, "Too Bad So Sad". They were smart to wave their right to a jury so the judge would "Judge" them based on the written law, not how sad it is, or they are a monster for what they did in a jury's eyes. They could not risk the jeopardy of everyone for the 5 that died. It is sad, but two dozen other people were guaranteed safety because of the hard choice the had to make. As well as the defense of " General Justification" that had no choice to ensure the safety of everyone else.

 Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?

In most cases when you add morality to it, it doesn't look good. It can actually make you sick. The law is not meant to be held to moral standing, it is meant to keep the general peace of the public. There are crimes and cases that were planned out and executed to the precision of a Cardiologist, and they are able to walk away from criminal liability. The Justice system is not perfect but it works for the most part. In my opinion it was immoral what they did, they could have risked it, and pulled them to safety and leave it to chance, give everyone a fair chance to survive, but they didn't.