What Is Wally Broge's Definition Of Murder
CANADA CRIMINAL CODE
Murder and Manslaughter
In order to convict anyone of a criminal offence, there must be a law, which specifically covers the matter at hand.
Here are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code under which, Wally Brogue is charged: Section 212 defines murder:
MURDER.
212. Culpable homicide is murder
a. Where the person who causes the death of a human being
i. Means to cause his death, or ii. Means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
b. Where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him/her bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident …show more content…
or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
c. Where a person, for a lawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to affect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
Section 214 defines the difference between first and second-degree murder:
213. (1) Murder is first-degree murder and second-degree murder.
(2) Murder is first-degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.
(7) All murder that is not first-degree murder is second-degree murder. Murder becomes manslaughter if the evidence meets the requirements of Section 215 (1):
214. (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.
(2) A wrongful act or insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self – control is provocation for the purposes of this section if the accused acted upon it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.
The judge will have to instruct the jury on the differences in law between first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter. The important element of difference is the intent involved. First-degree murder in premeditated that is planned and …show more content…
deliberate.
Second-degree murder is not planned.
Manslaughter is simply the killing of another person by an unlawful act such as an assault. It is not necessary to prove intent to kill another person or intent to inflict an injury likely to cause death in order to establish manslaughter. For manslaughter to be proved it is necessary only to prove that death resulted from an act of the accused person and that this act was unlawful. A shot or blow delivered in self – defence may, of course, be lawful if it is delivered in circumstances which justified the use of such force.
Section 218 and 219 set out the minimum punishments for a conviction of murder or manslaughter: Punishment for Murder – Minimum Punishment
218. (1) every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(2) For the purposes of Part XX, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this section is a minimum punishment. 1973 – 74, c. 38,
s. 3; 1974 – 75 – 76, c. 105, s. 5.
Punishment for Manslaughter.
219. Every one who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life. 1953 – 54, c. 51, s.
207.
Section 669 interprets what imprisonment for life means.
Section 669(a) sets out the mandatory term for a verdict of first-degree murder.
Section 669 (b) describes the range open to the judge in setting when someone convicted of second degree murder will be eligible for parole.
Section 669(c ) refers to a guilty verdict of manslaughter and leaves the question of the sentence term to the judge. The matter of the convicted person’s parole is left to the parole authorities.
Sentence of Life Imprisonment.
669. The sentence to be pronounced against a person who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be,
a) In respect of a person who has been convicted of high treason or first degree murder, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served twenty – five years of his sentence.
b) In respect of a person who has been convicted of second – degree murder, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served at least ten years of his sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty – five years, as has been substituted therefore pursuant to section 671; and
c) In respect of a person who has been convicted of any other offence, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life with normal eligibility for parole.
Conclusion
The sections of the Criminal Code, which define murder and manslaughter and the sentencing guidelines for each, are complicated. In the case of Ontario vs. Brogue they can be summarised as follows:
a) If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Wally Brogue went to David
Benning’s apartment with the intention of killing him, when Wally is guilty of first-degree murder. He must be sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for twenty – five years.
b) If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that, even though he had not planned it, Wally Brogue pushed David Benning over the balcony with the intention of causing death or bodily harm, which could result in death, then Wally is guilty of second-degree murder. Again, the required sentence is life imprisonment, but in this case the judge can decide when Wally will be eligible for parole. (Wally would have to serve at least ten years but not more than twenty-five before being eligible.)
c) If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Wally was provoked into committing some act in the heat of passion that resulted in the death of David
Benning, then Wally is guilty of manslaughter. In this case the judge will decide the term of sentence.
d) If none of the above can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then Wally Brogue is not guilty and the judge must let Wally go free.
Murder and Manslaughter
In order to convict anyone of a criminal offence, there must be a law, which specifically covers the matter at hand.
Here are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code under which, Wally Brogue is charged: Section 212 defines murder:
MURDER.
212. Culpable homicide is murder
a. Where the person who causes the death of a human being
i. Means to cause his death, or ii. Means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
b. Where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him/her bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident …show more content…
or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
c. Where a person, for a lawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to affect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
Section 214 defines the difference between first and second-degree murder:
213. (1) Murder is first-degree murder and second-degree murder.
(2) Murder is first-degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.
(7) All murder that is not first-degree murder is second-degree murder. Murder becomes manslaughter if the evidence meets the requirements of Section 215 (1):
214. (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.
(2) A wrongful act or insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self – control is provocation for the purposes of this section if the accused acted upon it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.
The judge will have to instruct the jury on the differences in law between first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter. The important element of difference is the intent involved. First-degree murder in premeditated that is planned and …show more content…
deliberate.
Second-degree murder is not planned.
Manslaughter is simply the killing of another person by an unlawful act such as an assault. It is not necessary to prove intent to kill another person or intent to inflict an injury likely to cause death in order to establish manslaughter. For manslaughter to be proved it is necessary only to prove that death resulted from an act of the accused person and that this act was unlawful. A shot or blow delivered in self – defence may, of course, be lawful if it is delivered in circumstances which justified the use of such force.
Section 218 and 219 set out the minimum punishments for a conviction of murder or manslaughter: Punishment for Murder – Minimum Punishment
218. (1) every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(2) For the purposes of Part XX, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this section is a minimum punishment. 1973 – 74, c. 38,
s. 3; 1974 – 75 – 76, c. 105, s. 5.
Punishment for Manslaughter.
219. Every one who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life. 1953 – 54, c. 51, s.
207.
Section 669 interprets what imprisonment for life means.
Section 669(a) sets out the mandatory term for a verdict of first-degree murder.
Section 669 (b) describes the range open to the judge in setting when someone convicted of second degree murder will be eligible for parole.
Section 669(c ) refers to a guilty verdict of manslaughter and leaves the question of the sentence term to the judge. The matter of the convicted person’s parole is left to the parole authorities.
Sentence of Life Imprisonment.
669. The sentence to be pronounced against a person who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be,
a) In respect of a person who has been convicted of high treason or first degree murder, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served twenty – five years of his sentence.
b) In respect of a person who has been convicted of second – degree murder, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until he has served at least ten years of his sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty – five years, as has been substituted therefore pursuant to section 671; and
c) In respect of a person who has been convicted of any other offence, that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life with normal eligibility for parole.
Conclusion
The sections of the Criminal Code, which define murder and manslaughter and the sentencing guidelines for each, are complicated. In the case of Ontario vs. Brogue they can be summarised as follows:
a) If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Wally Brogue went to David
Benning’s apartment with the intention of killing him, when Wally is guilty of first-degree murder. He must be sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for twenty – five years.
b) If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that, even though he had not planned it, Wally Brogue pushed David Benning over the balcony with the intention of causing death or bodily harm, which could result in death, then Wally is guilty of second-degree murder. Again, the required sentence is life imprisonment, but in this case the judge can decide when Wally will be eligible for parole. (Wally would have to serve at least ten years but not more than twenty-five before being eligible.)
c) If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Wally was provoked into committing some act in the heat of passion that resulted in the death of David
Benning, then Wally is guilty of manslaughter. In this case the judge will decide the term of sentence.
d) If none of the above can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then Wally Brogue is not guilty and the judge must let Wally go free.