Homicide Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Homicide - Research Paper Example Many have identified that the actual number of the criminals and serial killers are increasing by challenging he laws and the authorities. As such, the study of homicide deserves greater importance for the researchers and the general public. An overview of the various books and other writings published on this issue unveils that there has been many attempts to identify murder and homicide. However, even after various studies over this issue, one can still view it as an argumentative issue among the researchers and the intelligentsia. Only a thorough wider analysis and research, one can make clear certain issues regarding homicide and or murder. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another. If the killing is not excusable or justifiable, then it is called criminal homicide. Murder and Manslaughter are the two general categories of criminal homicide. In most countries, First Degree Murder is the most serious crime that people can commit, where manslaughter is a less serious cr iminally homicide. Considered the most heinous crime that could be committed in society, the intentional or unintentional act of murder brings lasting affects to the families of the victims and the murderers and their families. The consequences of these heinous actions have the potential to also affect the current laws that are in place, possibly having them amended. The proposed research seeks to explore certain realities concerning homicide and will conclude by analyzing the various types of homicides and the negative effects which may hamper the lives of modern people. 1. HOMICIDE - KILLING OF ANOTHER Homicide has often been identified as the killing of one human being by another human being due to various factors. Homicide is broader in scope than murder, though it has often referred as synonymous it. An overview of homicide reveals that murder is a variety of criminal homicide which is punishable where other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. Other forms of h omicides are often accounted as justified and excusable. Law has clearly defined or categorized various types of homicides which includes killing intentionally, murder for self-defense, planned murder, and so on. Individuals may engage in murder for self-defense, ‘kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime’ (The free dictionary, 2011). As per the laws existing in majority of the world nations, it is the circumstance surrounding a killing that decides whether a man is a criminal or not. The more specific legal terms takes into account the intent of the killer to regard his/her action as criminal homicide which is generally considered as murder or man slaughter. Regarding homicide, it can be brought under two main categories called Lawful killing and Unlawful killing. a. LAWFUL KILLING As per the legal statutes, English courts developed the body of Common Law on which U.S. jurisdictions already depending to develop their verdicts concerning homicides. The legal dictionary identifies the two types of homicides when it writes thus, â€Å"Early English common law divided homicide into two broad categories: felonious and non-felonious. Historically, the deliberate and premeditated killing of a person by another person was a felonious homicide and was

Ciminal law 1 Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Ciminal law 1 - Case Study Example Murder is unlawful homicide committed with 'malice aforethought' with the penalty of mandatory life imprisonment. 'Malice aforethought' describes the mens rea for a conviction of murder. Here it is necessary to consider that Drew had no 'malice aforethought' to killing Sam, who delivers the parcel, which consists of a letter bomb. Sam and a pedestrian was the victim of the bomb explosion. In Draft Criminal Code (Law Com. No. 177), the Law Commission recommended a change in the law. Clause 54 provides that a person is guilty of murder if he causes death of another intending to cause death or intending to cause serious personal harm and being aware that he may cause death. Colin was, in fact, an off-duty police officer. He was driving his family to Dover for they were going on holiday. Colin got back into his car and continued driving. The principle is that 'one must take one's victim as one finds them'. In Dytham6, D, a police constable, was on duty in uniform near a club when a man was ejected from the club and kicked to death by a 'bouncer'. D took no steps to intervene and when the incident was over he drove off having told a by stander that he was going of duty. D was charged with the common law offence of misconduct whilst acting as an offence of justice, in that he had wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification neglected to perform his duty to preserve the Queen's Peace and to protect the person of the deceased or arrest his assailants or otherwise bring them to justice. The CA upholds his conviction. However, D was convicted not for his positive act. Place reliance on a passage in Stephen's Digest of Criminal Law, which stated: 'Every public officer commits a misdemeanour who wilfully neglects to perform any duty which he is bound either by common law or by statute to perform provided that the discharge of such a duty is not attended with grater danger than a man of ordinary firmness and activity may be expected to encounter.' English law, unlike many other systems, does not impose on people a general duty to take positive action to assist people in difficulties or to avert harm, even if they are physically well capable of doing so. However, there is a very wide area of uncertainty. If there is a moral obligation to assist people in difficulty or danger, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Hoffmann in Stovin v Wise7, discuss why there is no legal obligation. In The Ogopogo 8the defendant had invited the claimant as a guest on his yacht. He accidentally fell overboard. D was not a mere bystander and was held to have a duty to reasonable care to save the claimant. In Goldman v Hargrave 9 may not have to show the care of a reasonable person, but only have to do what he is capable of, given his health and resources D was liable for his negative act. This is not difficult to apply when the D has undertaken an on going responsibility, in the course of which the omission occurs [Henderson v Merrett Syndicates10] and Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co11. To identify there liability it is necessary to consider few relevant case. R v Yaqoob 12 considered a partner in a taxi firm who was responsible for making all necessary arrangements for the inspection and maintenance of a minibus