What Was The Difference Between Sawyer And Sayid's Murder?
i.i Sawyer and Sayid
The legal definition on murder is “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”
In order for Sawyer to be convicted of Sayid’s murder it needs to be establish that the actus reus (guilty act) was present while the mens rea (guilty mind) and Sayid’s death was a result Sawyer unlawful act.
The actus reus of murder is unlawful act which results in death of another human being within the queen’s peace. The mens rea of murder is intention also known as malice aforethought there are two types of intention. Direct intended this is where the result of the person’s actions are intended, there is intent to kill is type of intention is also known as express malice aforethought. Oblique intend is where intention …show more content…
to cause Intention to cause GBH or the result is foreseen by the defendant’s acts this is also known as implied malice aforethought .
There has been an unlawful killing of a human being. There was no chain of causation, Sawyer’s actions grabbing the bamboo stick and stabbing Sayid in the heart. Sawyer’s actions resulted in Sayid’s death. Sawyer stabbed Sayid with the purpose of causing GBH2 or death this shows that Sawyer had the direct intent or malice aforethought1, after Sayid’s death Sawyer ate both fish alone. ii.i There are two defences for murder that can be pleaded by the defendant, it cannot be a charge itself it arises from murder. When these defences are successful it will result in a conviction of voluntary manslaughter.
Diminished Responsibility5 There are the four tests for diminished responsibility
(a)Abnormality of mental functioning, (b) which arises from a recognised medical condition, (c) so as to substantially impair D’s ability to: understand the nature of her conduct, form a rational judgment and exercise self-control and (d) which provides an explanation for her acts/omissions.
Locke suffers from (a) and (b) above for the following reasons:
- Suffers from severe personality disorder and headaches Byrne, R v (1960)
- Locke is hallucinating due to over doing in the sun, he is temporarily psychotic and also substantially impaired s52 , thinking he is under attack by Hurley, Locke clearly loses self-control. Such type of abnormality of mental functioning must have been a cause of the killing.
Loss of Control there is three tests
(a) There must be a loss of self-control which (b) has a qualifying trigger and (c) a person of D’s sex and age, with normal tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same/similar way.
No need for immediacy. Killings those have been incited, or are in revenge or which are due to sexual.
Qualifying trigger:
S55(3) - D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another. S55(4) things done or said which (a) are extremely grave and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged [objective].
In order to determinate if Locke can use the partial defence of loss of control these are the questions we need to ask: Did Locke have a qualifying triggers, what there anything said or done or a fear of serious violence? No, Hurley did not provoke or in any sense caused a fear of violence to Locke. This means the partial defence for loss of control has failed.
Locke could be liable for involuntary manslaughter under diminished responsibility.
As seen above diminished responsibility can only be used as a partial defence in case if the defendant suffers from a recognised mental illness and has the lack of making reasonable or sane thinking were in loss of control there the defendant will be compared against the reasonable man , what would the reasonable man that is normal mentally and physically would do under the same level of …show more content…
provocation.
Involuntary manslaughter this is when the defendant's conduct is the result of death and it is appropriate to find the defendant criminally liable for death.
This is not to be confused with murder because the defendant has a highly risky behaviour that can lead to death or serious injury but there is lack of intention, this careless conduct will be considered as criminal. Unlawful act manslaughter consists of an unlawful act, danger and causation. D must commit an unlawful , D must commit an act an omission does not count as an unlawful act , D's unlawful act must be dangerous ,D's dangerous act must cause death; The mens rea in constructive manslaughter the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had the mens rea to commit the unlawful act
.
Jack
The first step- Unlawful act
The capital, Jack, was drinking while driving the boat this by its own is an unlawful, if the prosecution can prove the actus reus and the mens rea are present but in this case (drink and drive), the actus reus is not needed.
The second step- Dangerous act (mens rea)
This test has one main reason in the words of Edmund Davis LJ in Church (1966)
"The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise".
This is an objective test for the jury what a sober and reasonable man would do or foreseeable in the circumstances (the effects of intoxication are ignored). The harm does not have to be direct to the victims in this case, in these passengers .
The third test- The substantial cause of death
The substantial cause of death must be caused by the unlawful act, the chain of causation and thin skull rule is the same for both murder and manslaughter.
As Corion-Auguiste(2004) the defendant, Jack's, unlawful was the substantial and direct cause of death of rest of the passengers. When trying to establish whenever Jack is liable for unlawful act manslaughter, these are the three questions that need to be asked:
Did Jack commit an unlawful act and was the unlawful act dangerous?
Did Jack's unlawful and dangerous act cause death or a significant cause of death? If the answer to all questions above is yes, this means that Jack can be liable for unlawful act manslaughter.
Gross negligence manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter is where the defendant owns a duty of care to the victim and breaches that duty this can be done by omissions or by the defendant’s acts and results to the death of the victim.
There are 4 stages to the Gross negligence manslaughter test:
a) The existence of a duty of care to the deceased, b) a breach of that duty of care which, c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and d) the breach should be extremely gross negligence and therefore a crime .
As set out in (Adamako1994), Kate as doctor has a duty of care to Charlie, the patient; Kate can be criminally liable for omissions and positive acts which cause the Charlie’s death . Kate has breach that duty of care by falling to administer the right medical treatment the result of this breach of duty led to Charlie’s death therefore Kate could be liable for Gross negligence manslaughter.
Conclusion
The law on murder and its partial defences have been criticised over the years. The Law Commission in 2006 published a report `Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide' pointing out the weaknesses and suggested reforms. One of the big issues was the partial defences of murder, that reduces the defendant’s liability to voluntary manslaughter was amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Diminished responsibility which was under the Homicide Act 1957 had the lack of guidance on what constituted ‘an abnormality of mind’. The current improved law replaced this with a more specific requirement of ‘abnormality of mental functioning’, which gives the defence a clearer medical definition. Another issue pointed out was the `Substantial impairment of mental responsibility' was said to be very vague, the current and improved law amended this by specifying that ‘D’s ability to understand the nature of his act, form rational judgement or exercise self-control, must be substantially impaired’. The Law Commission currently following the publication of its report, 'Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide' and they are proposing for murder and manslaughter to be substituted with “first” and “second” tiers of murder. The test for “first-degree” murder would be “intention to kill” and could be a mandatory life sentence. Second degree murder would include killings by “reckless indifference” to causing death, intention to do GBH2 and cases where the killer were provoked, or were suffering from diminished responsibility. Finally there deaths by gross negligence or unlawful and dangerous act or a criminal act with the awareness or intention to cause harm would be classified as manslaughter would be classed as manslaughter. The purposes of these new proposals is to create a “ladder of offences” to reflect degrees of culpability and to create clear view and match crimes closely to their sentences.
The legal definition on murder is “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”
In order for Sawyer to be convicted of Sayid’s murder it needs to be establish that the actus reus (guilty act) was present while the mens rea (guilty mind) and Sayid’s death was a result Sawyer unlawful act.
The actus reus of murder is unlawful act which results in death of another human being within the queen’s peace. The mens rea of murder is intention also known as malice aforethought there are two types of intention. Direct intended this is where the result of the person’s actions are intended, there is intent to kill is type of intention is also known as express malice aforethought. Oblique intend is where intention …show more content…
to cause Intention to cause GBH or the result is foreseen by the defendant’s acts this is also known as implied malice aforethought .
There has been an unlawful killing of a human being. There was no chain of causation, Sawyer’s actions grabbing the bamboo stick and stabbing Sayid in the heart. Sawyer’s actions resulted in Sayid’s death. Sawyer stabbed Sayid with the purpose of causing GBH2 or death this shows that Sawyer had the direct intent or malice aforethought1, after Sayid’s death Sawyer ate both fish alone. ii.i There are two defences for murder that can be pleaded by the defendant, it cannot be a charge itself it arises from murder. When these defences are successful it will result in a conviction of voluntary manslaughter.
Diminished Responsibility5 There are the four tests for diminished responsibility
(a)Abnormality of mental functioning, (b) which arises from a recognised medical condition, (c) so as to substantially impair D’s ability to: understand the nature of her conduct, form a rational judgment and exercise self-control and (d) which provides an explanation for her acts/omissions.
Locke suffers from (a) and (b) above for the following reasons:
- Suffers from severe personality disorder and headaches Byrne, R v (1960)
- Locke is hallucinating due to over doing in the sun, he is temporarily psychotic and also substantially impaired s52 , thinking he is under attack by Hurley, Locke clearly loses self-control. Such type of abnormality of mental functioning must have been a cause of the killing.
Loss of Control there is three tests
(a) There must be a loss of self-control which (b) has a qualifying trigger and (c) a person of D’s sex and age, with normal tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D might have reacted in the same/similar way.
No need for immediacy. Killings those have been incited, or are in revenge or which are due to sexual.
Qualifying trigger:
S55(3) - D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another. S55(4) things done or said which (a) are extremely grave and (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged [objective].
In order to determinate if Locke can use the partial defence of loss of control these are the questions we need to ask: Did Locke have a qualifying triggers, what there anything said or done or a fear of serious violence? No, Hurley did not provoke or in any sense caused a fear of violence to Locke. This means the partial defence for loss of control has failed.
Locke could be liable for involuntary manslaughter under diminished responsibility.
As seen above diminished responsibility can only be used as a partial defence in case if the defendant suffers from a recognised mental illness and has the lack of making reasonable or sane thinking were in loss of control there the defendant will be compared against the reasonable man , what would the reasonable man that is normal mentally and physically would do under the same level of …show more content…
provocation.
Involuntary manslaughter this is when the defendant's conduct is the result of death and it is appropriate to find the defendant criminally liable for death.
This is not to be confused with murder because the defendant has a highly risky behaviour that can lead to death or serious injury but there is lack of intention, this careless conduct will be considered as criminal. Unlawful act manslaughter consists of an unlawful act, danger and causation. D must commit an unlawful , D must commit an act an omission does not count as an unlawful act , D's unlawful act must be dangerous ,D's dangerous act must cause death; The mens rea in constructive manslaughter the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant had the mens rea to commit the unlawful act
.
Jack
The first step- Unlawful act
The capital, Jack, was drinking while driving the boat this by its own is an unlawful, if the prosecution can prove the actus reus and the mens rea are present but in this case (drink and drive), the actus reus is not needed.
The second step- Dangerous act (mens rea)
This test has one main reason in the words of Edmund Davis LJ in Church (1966)
"The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise".
This is an objective test for the jury what a sober and reasonable man would do or foreseeable in the circumstances (the effects of intoxication are ignored). The harm does not have to be direct to the victims in this case, in these passengers .
The third test- The substantial cause of death
The substantial cause of death must be caused by the unlawful act, the chain of causation and thin skull rule is the same for both murder and manslaughter.
As Corion-Auguiste(2004) the defendant, Jack's, unlawful was the substantial and direct cause of death of rest of the passengers. When trying to establish whenever Jack is liable for unlawful act manslaughter, these are the three questions that need to be asked:
Did Jack commit an unlawful act and was the unlawful act dangerous?
Did Jack's unlawful and dangerous act cause death or a significant cause of death? If the answer to all questions above is yes, this means that Jack can be liable for unlawful act manslaughter.
Gross negligence manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter is where the defendant owns a duty of care to the victim and breaches that duty this can be done by omissions or by the defendant’s acts and results to the death of the victim.
There are 4 stages to the Gross negligence manslaughter test:
a) The existence of a duty of care to the deceased, b) a breach of that duty of care which, c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and d) the breach should be extremely gross negligence and therefore a crime .
As set out in (Adamako1994), Kate as doctor has a duty of care to Charlie, the patient; Kate can be criminally liable for omissions and positive acts which cause the Charlie’s death . Kate has breach that duty of care by falling to administer the right medical treatment the result of this breach of duty led to Charlie’s death therefore Kate could be liable for Gross negligence manslaughter.
Conclusion
The law on murder and its partial defences have been criticised over the years. The Law Commission in 2006 published a report `Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide' pointing out the weaknesses and suggested reforms. One of the big issues was the partial defences of murder, that reduces the defendant’s liability to voluntary manslaughter was amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Diminished responsibility which was under the Homicide Act 1957 had the lack of guidance on what constituted ‘an abnormality of mind’. The current improved law replaced this with a more specific requirement of ‘abnormality of mental functioning’, which gives the defence a clearer medical definition. Another issue pointed out was the `Substantial impairment of mental responsibility' was said to be very vague, the current and improved law amended this by specifying that ‘D’s ability to understand the nature of his act, form rational judgement or exercise self-control, must be substantially impaired’. The Law Commission currently following the publication of its report, 'Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide' and they are proposing for murder and manslaughter to be substituted with “first” and “second” tiers of murder. The test for “first-degree” murder would be “intention to kill” and could be a mandatory life sentence. Second degree murder would include killings by “reckless indifference” to causing death, intention to do GBH2 and cases where the killer were provoked, or were suffering from diminished responsibility. Finally there deaths by gross negligence or unlawful and dangerous act or a criminal act with the awareness or intention to cause harm would be classified as manslaughter would be classed as manslaughter. The purposes of these new proposals is to create a “ladder of offences” to reflect degrees of culpability and to create clear view and match crimes closely to their sentences.