Law Case Study Coursework: Answering Some Questions (Coursework Sample)

Law Case Study
[Author’s Name]
[Name of Institution]
[Subject]
[Date of submission]
Law Case Study
Question # 1:
There are two fundamental elements of a crime Actus Reus and Mens Rea. According to Smith and Hogan in their book of Criminal Law defined Actus Reus represents the external and physical elements of the offense, whereas, Mens Rea represents the mental element of the offense. In the following scenario, Patrick was browsing travel guide in a bookshop and absent-mindedly puts the book in his pocket. It is not always necessary to identify the individual component of the offense but the careful examination of these individual elements helps, in identifying the key differences between the offensesCITATION Lac03 \p 60 \l 1033 (Lacey, 2003, p. 60).
In many criminal offenses, a criminal conduct includes the element of fault, i.e. indicates the presence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea simultaneously. Nevertheless, in the offense of strict criminal liability the case can have only Actus Reus without the corresponding Mens Rea. In the relevant case law, the statement that Patrick absent-mindedly placed travel guide in his pocket, which highpoints both the significant component of the offense. Patrick has placed a possession, i.e. travel guide in his pocket, which highlights the physical element of the offence. Whereas, he placed that travel guide absent-mindedly highlight the mental element of the offense where he did not intend to rob someone else’s possession CITATION Chr05 \l 1033 (Clarkson, 2005).
It is important to understand the fact that from a stringent theoretical perspective, there is a mental element implicit in the physical element of the offense. It is likely to be the case that a person possesses a possession, which is unknown to him. Similar is the case of Patrick where he possesses a possession i.e. travel guide, which is unknown to him. Furthermore, the general implications of the legal possession involve both the elements of offense and a clear state of mind. Here, the prosecution Patrick can defend his place using the mental element of the offense. Concisely, the Actus Reus for the theft is established because Patrick left the store without the payment of the travel guide. However, there is no Mens Rea for the theft because Patrick did not intend to steal the travel guide.
Question # 2:
* Abortion is the termination of the pregnancy before the birth of a child thereby, culminating the death of a fetus. According to the definition, i.e. provided in the text, Zara is a person sound mind and discretion. Furthermore, she is unlawfully killing the fetus. However, according to the legal Abortion Act of 1967, the law permits that abortion can be carried out within the 24 weeks of pregnancy. Since Zara, has decided to abort child in 14 weeks, it is the legitimate right of Zara. Moreover, the law further clarifies that if the birth of a child would give permanent physical or mental injury to the mother, then abortion is permissible. Several researchers argue over the fact that in tragic cases like rape, the mental health of the women can be safeguarded by abortion. The legislative laws and policies are making utmost efforts to carve out a rape exception thus, providing access to abortion. In accordance with the presented scenario and the laws, Zara is not committing a murder by choosing abortionCITATION Ron08 \p 75 \l 1033 (Ronald, 2008, p. 75).
* Armin tried killing his wife and in an attempt of self-defense, Yolande pushed him away, which accidentally resulted in the piercing of the knife to the Armin’s heart. According to the definition of murder she has not unlawfully killed-it is a state of self-defense where she was struggling to secure her own life. According to the law of self-defense, if a threat involves deadly force than the other person can counteract the threat with same deadly force. Additionally, Yolande had no intentions to kill and cause grievous bodily harm. Therefore, Yolande cannot be convicted as a murderer. Later in the scenario, the Armin was kept alive with the help of a ventilator, which they decided to switch off after three days. Since there was no improvement and the patient was not breathing by his own lungs. In this scenario, the doctor is not murderer. In accordance with the Actus Reus, an act is not guilty unless the mind is guiltyCITATION Ron08 \p 80 \l 1033 (Ronald, 2008, p. 80).
* According to the definition of the murder, and regarding the thin skull rule that states that: a physical weakness of a victim should not be used as a defense in a murder case. Amanda is a person of sound mind and discretion. Moreover, she punched making Yvvette to fall down stimulating skull bone condition which finally leads to her death. In this case, Amanda is murderer because she has intently caused bodily harm to Yvette resulting in stimulating her medical condition that leads to her death. There is a thin line of demarcation between the manslaughter and murderer. Since Amanda intent to cause harm to Yvette, which was obvious due to public threat therefore, cannot be regarded as manslaughterCITATION Dav101 \p 253 \l 1033 (David C. Brody, 2010, p. 253).
* The scenario states that Walter is a mental patient, which is in contrast to the definition. The definition states that the person can be convicted as murderer provided if it commits this offense with sound mind and discretion. Since, Walter is not in the right state of mind therefore, cannot be regarded as murderer.
* The organization has deliberately added poisonous, toxic waste in the river. The organization was aware of the consequences that it may lead. According to Actus Reus, an act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty. Here, the owner of the organization had no criminal intention instead aimed to improve the sales of the company. According to Mens Rea, the owner of the organization is aware of the fact that his conduct is criminal. Nevertheless, according to the definition of the murderer, an organization or a corporation cannot be murdered therefore; the situational analysis concludes that the organization is not murderer.
Question # 3:
It is important to understand the fact that there are two elements of a crime Actus Reus and Mens Rea. These are the two general basis, which are necessary for imposing criminal liability. In order to impose a liability of the criminal law, it is imperative to prove the defendant regarding the commitment of the guilty act and at the same time guilty of mind. The sciences of criminal law convinces on an idea that the commitment of crime consists of both physical and mental components. Actus Reus is the physical components of the crime, which is the actual, act itself, whereas; Mens Rea is the mental element of the crime, which high points the intention behind the crime. For a criminal behavior and a crime to occur, both the elements occur simultaneouslyCITATION Lac03 \p 60 \l 1033 (Lacey, 2003, p. 60).
And referring to R v Woolin (1999) we cannot use this this example to give out our argument because in that case, the father was angry and that is why he threw the child on the wall. In this case, study, Nick had the knowledge that the pedestrians were using the street and to make this case interesting, he used bomb that even a nonprofessional known its consequence. Nick is an animal activist who wishes to increase awareness among the masses regarding the animal rights. In doing so, he constantly stressed upon the participation of government officials. To his disappointment, he noticed that the government is playing no role in taking any measures against violation of animal rights. Therefore, to cater attention, Nick detonates a bomb in public place. The crime that occurred has two elements that is the act itself and the intention behind the act. According to Actus Reus, Nick implanted bomb, which detonated around 3:45 pm and it mercilessly killed several people. In accordance with Mens Rea, the intention of the Nick was to gather the attention of the masses and public ...