...Revision Theories of Punishment and Criminalisation • These should be reviewed in order to help answer essay type questions. For example • “What point does causation play in criminal liability”? • Would require an explanation of why it is appropriate to punish someone for what they achieve (eg killing someone) rather than what they set out to achieve (eg beating someone up). The theory of retribution helps here – punishment according to one’s desert which must take into account not only the fact that one has acted wrongfully but also the consequences which ensue. Gerneral Principles of Criminal Liability Liability depends upon • Wrongdoing (actus reus) • Culpability (mens rea) • Absence of any defence General Principles (con) • Key Points • Actus Reus – usually liability requires proof of some act. You must identify that act. Without it there may be no liability however blameworthy the person is. General Principles (con) • Sometimes liability may be based upon an omission to act – 1. Statutory crimes of omission eg failing to wear a seat belt. – 2. Liability for result crimes (eg murder, manslaughter, s.18 OAPA) may be engaged for an omission but only if there is a duty to act. Omissions (con) • Essay Questions • Eg Should there be a general duty to act? 1. Requires statement of the general principle (act needed) 2. Requires discussion of reasons for and against eg promoting good community values, contra autonomy, certainty etc. YOU MUST READ YOUR...
Words: 1418 - Pages: 6
...also which philosophies that will be included. Moral philosophy is the area of philosophy concerned with theories of ethics, with how we ought to live our lives. Deontology and utilitarianism are the two philosophies that I shall be evaluating and applying throughout this essay. These are two time-honoured philosophical positions that apply to a wide variety of topics. Deontology is an ethical system that is attributed to the philosophical tradition of Immanuel Kant. Deontology demands that the actions, or means themselves must be ethical. This philosophy is based upon principles of duty and obligation, we have the freedom to act morally (right) or otherwise (wrong) based on General Universal Laws. To respect life means that you must not kill, to respect others is not to steal these moral laws are black and white as you must do what is right and do not do what is wrong regardless of circumstance or outcome. Deontologists argue that there are transcendent ethical norms and truths that are universally applicable to all people. Deontology holds that some actions are immoral regardless of their consequence; these actions are wrong in and of themselves. We should not act out of feeling, inclination, love or compassion, but out of our moral duty according to the universal moral laws. Kant gives a ‘categorical imperative’ to act morally at all times. The categorical imperative has three main principles and helps us to know which actions are obligatory and which are forbidden. Moral statements...
Words: 3773 - Pages: 16
...Over decades, ethical dilemmas like The Trolley or The Transplant have been discussed in great details by philosophers. Different schools of thoughts offer various arguments to whether it is morally right or wrong to kill or let die. In the example of the Transplant whereby a doctor has to choose to kill one healthy person to save five sick patients or let the five die, it is morally impermissible to kill the one person. According to Utilitarianism, an action is ethical if it maximizes the happiness for the greatest number of people (Rowe). Hence, the doctor should kill the one person to save the five people who would die imminently without a transplant. If the healthy person gives the doctor his or her consent to donate the organs to other...
Words: 370 - Pages: 2
...Wikipedia Euthanasia : "good death"refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient".[2] Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.[3] Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for."[5] The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia"—the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept—the euthanasia "which...
Words: 1115 - Pages: 5
...Confidentiality and Informed Consent Claudia Lewis PSY/305 6/29/15 Dr. Daniel Williams Jr, PsyD, MSW Confidentiality and Informed Consent Introduction Dear client this paper is to inform you, of your right to confidentiality, and further more explain the process of informed consent. In the world of Psychology and counseling, confidentiality and informed consent has been the cornerstone to our practices (University of Phoenix, 1994). This paper will help you to understand how the things you say during the counseling sessions may have legal implications against you; by first explaining the decision of Tarasoff v. the board of Regents of the University of California, followed by how it relates to the therapist-client relationship in regards to confidentiality; then finally explaining the process of informed consent and refusal. Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California Decision According to University of Phoenix Confidentiality after Tarasoff (1994), the Tarasoff v. board of regents of the University of California case was heard before the California Supreme court, when Tatiana Tarasoff, a student at The University of California was killed by a fellow student. Her parents sued the University of California, the Police and the Therapist (University of Phoenix, 1994). The parents claim was that neither the School, Police or the Therapist warned them of the intentions of this fellow school mate to kill their daughter, Tatiana Tarasoff, as the fellow...
Words: 1060 - Pages: 5
...consuming us that the paragraph argues. I must admit that I am looking at this through my Jewish education, which has taught me that we cannot choose when to take a human’s life, and that we are a superior race to the rest of the animals. For that reason, we can choose when to end a suffering animal’s life, but not when it comes to a human life. It is a human duty to cure, not to kill. With sufferance and with any illness it is our duty to work to cure that person and to hope for the best, not to quit and end their lives. What is more, euthanasia is usually practiced on patients who have lost the ability to communicate with others, so therefore we would be ending somebody’s life without their own consent. And even if we do have his consent, same way we would not let somebody jump off a roof, we would not let somebody kill himself with euthanasia. We should want to help them, to give them a hand and help them through the hard moments. Sometimes helping means coming up with a cure, sometimes it is just talking to them. Euthanasia or jumping off a roof, it is still to commit suicide, and without their consent, it would be as if we would be pushing them off the roof. It is not because it is in a hospital that it makes it different: a life is lost whatever the...
Words: 339 - Pages: 2
...some countries, euthanasia should not be practiced or be legalized because it devalues lives, it might become involuntary and doctors should cure and not kill. According to the article “Euthanasia: Arguments Against Euthanasia”, people might think that death is better than being sick. They might think that death is the only solution to problems. People who support euthanasia say that it is done as self-defense. For example, a soldier is brutally wounded and might die if not treated immediately. Is partner decides to ask his consent for euthanasia to end his suffering. Killing for self-defense means that you kill to save another one’s life but in euthanasia, you do not save anyone’s life. Euthanasia devalues lives because it tells us that we can take our or someone’s life easily. Euthanasia is done to a person with his consent. It is the decision of that person if he wants to do it. According to the article “Arguments Against Euthanasia”, people might decide to go for euthanasia because of emotional and psychological pressures. For example, a patient is suffering because of an illness and his doctor said to him that it is better for him to die. That person might go for it because he suffers too much and his doctor said that it is better. Murder is like the involuntary euthanasia. You take someone’s life without his consent. If euthanasia was legal, murderers would say that they killed a person because of euthanasia in their defense. Doctors should try to save lives and not...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
...Weizman trial"- Sentencing a minor as an adult. This case should be an exception as well. The claims: * The attempted murder of Ralph- "Trying to unlawfully cause the death of a person" Attempted murder is an offense similar to first degree murder with the exception that an attempt is lacking the outcome of the offense (The death). As we can see in the book Jack mens rea (guiltily mind) was of intent ("intention- if one decided to kill, and killed or try to kill in cold blood, without provocation occurs immediately before the kill") to kill Ralph (Jack: "see? See? That’s what you'll get! I meant that! There isn’t a tribe for you any more…" page 181; The twins: "they're going to hunt you tomorrow" page 188), this quotes show that the kids led by Jack were ready to kill anyone in there way and implying that murder Ralph is a viable option. Jack was aware that his influence on the kids could end up with Ralph's death. Furthermore there is no evidence that Ralph provoked Jack immediately before attempting to murder Ralph. But he never got to kill him because Ralph bump into the officer, otherwise we...
Words: 686 - Pages: 3
...law in your hands. Suicide in general isn’t acceptable, even though everyone is responsible for themselves, people do not have the right to die. For R. vs. Latimer case, what the court decided was the accused should be convicted of second degree murder, sentencing him life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 10 years. Although what the jury recommended was he should be eligible for parole after one year. But under the Canadian law it states anyone who is found guilty of second degree murder, requires a 10 year minimum jail sentence. Knowing that the accused daughter was disabled and was suffering, so he killed her to take her away from the pain, it was still a case of murder. The accused daughter was too young to give informed consent and there was no proof that the daughter had asked help for dying. The accused on his own decided to take his daughter’s life, whether it was for her own good or not, it’s the same as killing an ordinary person. Even though in the case it was decided that the accused is charged with second degree murder for killing his daughter, the accused...
Words: 882 - Pages: 4
...A Regrettably Inadequate Defence of Abortion This essay shall examine and critique Judith Jarvis Thomson’s analogy of the sickly violinist, as it relates to the moral permissibility of abortion. I shall conclude that the analogy is ultimately too dissimilar from a general case of abortion to be an accurate representation of the mother-foetus relationship. I will further conclude that at best the analogy only provides justification for abortion in cases of rape, and when a developing foetus becomes a threat to the mother’s life. The Impermissibility Argument Much of the debate concerning the permissibility of abortion surrounds the notion of ‘personhood’, specifically whether a developing foetus qualifies as such a being. Opponents of abortion expend much energy arguing for the conferring of personhood to the moment of conception, whilst the proponents argue this would be a misclassification. One would not call a pinecone a pine tree; to label a foetus as a person is similarly inappropriate (Thomson: Page 47). Thomson argues this tact distracts from the primary concern of abortion, for even if one grants that a foetus is a person, one’s work is still ahead of them to argue against the permissibility of abortion (Thomson: Page 48). The argument runs as follows: P1: As a person, the foetus has the right to life. P2: As a person, the woman has the right of autonomy concerning her own body. P3: The right to life is more important than the right to autonomy over one’s...
Words: 2794 - Pages: 12
...patient's knowledge or consent. Some call this "life-terminating treatment." Euthanasia can be either active or passive. Passive euthanasia allows one to die by withholding or withdrawing life supporting means. This is a tricky area because ordinary and extraordinary means of supporting life come into the picture. Ordinary means such as nutrition and hydration are never to be withheld since they are one's basic right in order to survive. However, one is not obliged to use extraordinary or 'disproportionate' means to sustain life. Due to complexity, each situation needs to be looked at individually when discussing extraordinary means. However, as a rule, one can discontinue "medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome." One cannot intend death by withdrawing or withholding treatment, but should, however, obey God and let one die a natural death. To withdraw a treatment as a condition worsens is letting one die and not a direct killing. In this case, it is the disease that is killing and not the one who withdraws the treatment. Active euthanasia or' mercy killing' pertains to the Dr. Kevorkian’s' of the day. This is the direct intentional killing of a patient with either their consent (voluntary), without their consent when impossible (non-voluntary), or without consent but not sought (involuntary). Advocates of this murder have covered their ears to the command of the Lord: Thou shall not kill! The goal is to eliminate...
Words: 591 - Pages: 3
...In Re F , the doctor performing the operation would be held guilty in the criminal law. However, the House Of Lords (Lord Goff, with whom Lord Bridge and Jauncey agreed), explained that it was ‘the principle of necessity ‘which, among other things, allowed people to assist others without their consent. One can submit that Lord Goff did mention necessity expressly as he stated that common law principle of necessity could justify action which would otherwise be unlawful in three groups of cases- (1) cases of public necessity, where defendant interferes with another’s property in the public interest. (2) cases of private necessity where defendant interferes with another’s property from imminent peril and (3) ‘action taken as a matter of necessity to assist another person without his...
Words: 2999 - Pages: 12
...the importance of a strong relationship between patients and their health care providers, to stress the key role patients play in staying healthy by laying out rights and responsibilities for all patients and health care providers.” The essential goal is to let patients know the treatment options proposed by the medical professional tending to them so that the patient can consent to treatment that they feel is right for them. Under the bill of rights, patients the right to talk privately with health care providers and to have your health care information protected. According to [ (The AGS Foundation for Health in Aging) ], “Except under extraordinary circumstances, you have the legal right to make decisions about your body and your medical care. Ideally, these decisions should be made by capable, informed patients after discussion with their physicians and other health care providers.” Identify and explain at least three ethical considerations: The ethical considerations are that the Nurse Nancy is taking it upon herself to give the patient unnecessary drugs to end her patient’s life, without the consent of the patient or her family. Another ethical consideration is it would be unethical for me, another nurse, not to report Nurse Nancy’s intentions to my superiors. It is my duty to protect the patient from harm and to act rationally in the care of the patient. It is unethical to put the patient in a satiation that...
Words: 1147 - Pages: 5
...patient's knowledge or consent. Some call this "life-terminating treatment." Euthanasia can be either active or passive. Passive euthanasia allows one to die by withholding or withdrawing life supporting means. This is a tricky area because ordinary and extraordinary means of supporting life come into the picture. Ordinary means such as nutrition and hydration are never to be withheld since they are one's basic right in order to survive. However, one is not obliged to use extraordinary or 'disproportionate' means to sustain life. Due to complexity, each situation needs to be looked at individually when discussing extraordinary means. However, as a rule, one can discontinue "medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome." One cannot intend death by withdrawing or withholding treatment, but should, however, obey God and let one die a natural death. To withdraw a treatment as a condition worsens is letting one die and not a direct killing. In this case, it is the disease that is killing and not the one who withdraws the treatment. Active euthanasia or' mercy killing' pertains to the Dr. Kevorkian’s' of the day. This is the direct intentional killing of a patient with either their consent (voluntary), without their consent when impossible (non-voluntary), or without consent but not sought (involuntary). Advocates of this murder have covered their ears to the command of the Lord: Thou shall not kill! The goal is to eliminate...
Words: 1119 - Pages: 5
...Josh Radcliff The Dark Knight Essay The Joker is pure evil. His only purpose in destroying Gotham City is because he likes to wreck havoc on the world . He already escaped prison once. He is slowly tearing Gotham City apart. Batman has no choice; he must kill the Joker. Utilitarianism is the main ethical system that supports Batman killing the Joker. Because Utilitarianism is a consequentialist system, the morality of an act depends solely on its consequences, and its main focus is on utility, the belief that an act is morally good if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, any stunt that the Joker plays is considered an immoral act because only he receives pleasure from his acts of crime while thousands of others suffer. When Batman traps the Joker, he has to decide between killing him or letting him go, and as defender of Gotham City, he has to take the peoples' well being into consideration. In making his decision, he also has to acknowledge the idea of Hedonism, which states that pleasure, or the absence of pain, is the only thing good or desirable for all people. Ultimately, when making a Utilitarian decision, Batman must choose the option that gives the highest kinds of pleasure to the maximum number of people. In order to do this though, it is ideal that Batman takes the viewpoint of a "disinterested and benevolent spectator," as John Stuart Mill suggests. When making a Utilitarian decision, Batman first subconsciously has to decide what...
Words: 1258 - Pages: 6
