Responsibility not a Sufficient Condition of Liability Essay Example for Free

Responsibility not a Sufficient Condition of Liability Essay Introduction Duff = â€Å"responsibility is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of liability† An actor is responsible when they are sufficiently blameworthy in causing the harm or committing the wrong = we blame those who have control over their actions (committing a crime is a mental process) * MR is the guilty mind. Note that it is not necessarily a moral/culpable judgment, and there can be involuntary MR e.g. drugged paedophile in Kingston. * There are many MR states of mind: the sentencing advisory panel stated that there are 4 levels of culpability = intent, recklessness, knowledge, and negligence [in some crimes only negligence is required * Two species of MR Cognitive (involves intention or foresight by D) and Normative (evaluation of D action taking into account surrounding circumstance and D state of mind) * Proof of Cognitive = subjective test (assume state of mind is ascertainable only direct evidence is a confession) – jury ascertain reasonable person but destroy subjectivity * DPP v Smith = D trying to escape from the police in a car was signalled to stop. He did not do so. A PC jumped onto the cars bonnet. D drove at high speed, swerving from side to side, until the officer was thrown off and killed. = CJA S8 – endorses the idea that intention is to be subjectively ascertained Intention Some crimes are only committed intentionally so must distinguish from recklessness e.g. GBH * Direct intent – It was D’s purpose/aim/objective to bring about the AR. Duff = test of failure – would D intend their actions to be a failure * Oblique intent – The AR was a necessary by-product of D committing his offence, although it was not his purpose. * Intent is a subjective concept and must be judged according to what D wanted to happen or foresaw happening (s.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 = lays down evidential rule as to how intention is to be proved and makes it clear that intention is a subjective state of mind = court or jury must draw inferences from all relevant evidence): * D will intend something if it  was his purpose to bring it about. Similarly, a jury may use as evidence of intention that D foresaw the result of his act as a virtual certainty and it was a virtual certainty. (Woollin, which affirmed the test in Nedrick) * Nedrick = D poured paraffin through C letter box and set light to it. A child died in the fire. The judge directed the jury as follows: If when the accused performed the act of setting fire to the house, he knew that it was highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily injury to somebody inside the house, even though he did not desire it desire to bring that result about he is guilty or murder. â€Å"The jury convicted of murder and the defendant appealed on the grounds of a mis-direction. Held: There was a clear misdirection. The Court of Appeal reviewed the cases of Maloney and Hancock Shankland and formulated a new direction from the two decisions. Lord Lane CJ: the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case. * Woolin D threw his crying child at the cot but missed and he hit his head and died. This was the exact opposite of what D intended. Judge misdirected jury by saying that intention could be inferred from D’s realisation of a ‘substantial risk’. = Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case. The decision is one for the jury to be reached upon a consideration of all the evidence. * Lord Bridge disagrees with the leniency of the Woollin definition. He uses the example of a man who boards a plane to Manchester – the plane’s arrival in Manchester is a virtual certainty and so it should be seen as conclusive pr oof of intent to go there. Woollin is more generous. * Exceptional cases : oblique intention – D has a purpose other than causing the prohibited harm but where that result is an inevitable or likely consequence – in rare cases it is permissible / central problem is that  there are 2 possible interpretations of Woollin * Definitional interpretation = extended definition of intention – if a consequence is foreseen as virtually certain the jury may be told that this amounts to intention * Evidential interpretation = still no definition of intention where a consequence is foreseen as virtually certain this is evidence entitling a court or jury to find intention – jury has discretion * Evidential adopted = Matthews and Alleyn = Ds who had tossed a half dead V off a bridge who they knew couldn’t swim appealed. Claimed the judge misdirected because he equated the knowledge of virtual certainty to proof of intent, not just evidence. Rix LJ couldn’t see the difference. * Adv. of evidential = gives jury flexibility = jury given moral elbow room (get out clause) * R v Steane = D British radio announcer who was living in Germany during WWII. With his family under threat he was forced to broadcast on the radio for the Nazis. After the war charged with doing acts likely to help the enemy with the intent to assist the enemy. If this case was decided today under evidential the jury would have moral elbow room to find there was no intent * RE A (conjoined twins)= lawful for doctors to separate conjoined twins even though would leave to certain death of the weaker twin LJ Walker = allowed himself moral elbow room as doctors would not intend to kill the weaker twin because that was not the purpose or intention of the surgery * Is intention a psychological state of mind or a moral conclusion = the doctor would not be morally responsible for the death * Does intention have same meaning for all crimes Woollin is the latest case so is the authority but only talking about murder – therefore use Nedrick for all other crimes – but no other authority so use Woollin * The Law Commission support codifying the Woollin test in statute. Proposed definition of intention * Chandler v DPP = D opposed to nuclear weapons so planned non-violent action to immobilise an aircraft – under evidential interpretation the jury would be able to evaluate the motives of D but this may largely depend on political persuasion of the jury so generates uncertainty and inconsistency and would also blur the distinction between the elements of an offence and exculpatory defences Pedain – Intent and the Terrorist Example * The terrorist example is used to show flaws in the definition of intent.  It assumes that a terrorist wants to gain attention by planting a bomb in a public place, but giving enough warning that he thinks the place can be evacuated in enough time. It is, but a member of the bomb disposal squad is killed when trying to disarm the bomb. He may not have foreseen this death, and if he didn’t he isn’t guilty of murder. Many see this as unacceptable. * German law involved D recognising and reconciling with himself the risk that he is exposing people to and liability follows. * The other example is the terrorist who does want the bomb to explode but gets caught and then the bomb disposal person dies. He doesn’t intend to kill the bomb disposal expert. But Pedain says this shouldn’t matter – it is still murder. Can we use a ‘type of harm/transferred malice’ argument. Kaveny – Inferring Intention from Foresight * Two opposing views: one recognises that foresight is conceptually different from intention but that a jury may infer one from the other, and the other that foresight is form of intention. * Neither is acceptable because no degree of foresight can be defined as intention, nor can it be the basis of any reliable finding of intention – so neither view is acceptable. * Thus if we are going to allow foresight to be a basis for a murder charge, it has to be built in as a separate mens rea element instead of using Woollin. Recklessness Regarded as sufficiently blameworthy Until October 2003 there were 2 distinct species of recklessness * 1 = Cunningham recklessness a subjective meaning of recklessness was approved (Recklessness entails a conscious running of an unjustifiable risk) * Stephenson = tramp started fire in a straw stack on a farm – charged under criminal damage act but evidence made by psychiatrist that D suffered from schizophrenia so no subjective foresight [under subjectivity the definition of recklessness lies down a double test 1)whether D foresaw the possibility of consequences /2)whether it was unreasonable to take the risk ] * The law commission in the draft criminal law bill 1993 and the draft offences against the person bill 1998 has endorsed subjectivity * 2= Caldwell / Lawrence recklessness [in 1981 the direction of the HoL changed  due to their verdicts in 2 cases dramatically according to the first part of the test of foreseeability of consequences it was now objective] * Caldwell = D had done some work for the owner of a hotel and as a result of quarrel, got drunk and set fire to the hotel, D argued it did not occur to him that there might be people there whose lives might be endangered. None of the 10 guests were harmed Held: Recklessness in the context of Criminal Damage does not require subjective appreciation of the risk of causing damage, but is also satisfied by a failure to consider an obvious risk. HoL held a person is reckless if 1) he does an act which leads to an obvious risk 2) when does an act which either a) gave no thought to the possibility of the consequences b) did recognise consequences [pretty much a test of negligence] The risk need only be obvious in the sense that it would have been obvious to the reasonable man, not to the accused if he or she had stopped to think Elliott v C nor to a person of the age of the accused or sharing the accused’s characteristics R (Stephen Malcolm) ; R v Miller These cases were confirmed and followed in R v Coles * Lawrence = D drove his motorcycle on a 30mph road at about 80mph, and killed a pedestrian who was crossing the road./Lord Diplock = the defendant was in fact driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk †¦ and, second, that in driving in that manner the defendant did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognised that there was some risk involved, had none the less gone on to take it. * Lacuna (gap) in the law of recklessness as above test does not take into account if D stops to think whether there is a risk and then concludes there is no risk and consequently acts * Avon v Shimmen = D thought he had ruled out the risk of causing damage to a window when he aimed a martial-art-style kick in its direction, basing his view on his faith in his own skill. [the risk must be obvious but to whom a reasonable person or D if they think about it] * Elliott V C = A fourteen-year-old girl who had learning difficulties set fire to shed – use objective test and learning difficulty irrelevant The court accepted that she could not appreciate the risk of the damage, but such a risk would have been obvious to the ordinary person and Caldwell was applied * Current  test for recklessness: D believes his conduct will result in a risk of harm, and that risk is not a reasonable one to take but he takes it (from Cunningham and reaffirmed in G and Another) * Cunningham – D pulled a gas meter off a wall in order to gain illegal access to a house. It caused a gas leak and V was poisoned. No recklessness because risk was not foreseen. * The test is subjective: there can be no liability where there is no risk foreseen. * G and Another – two boys set fire to some papers underneath a bin, which then spread and caused  £1m worth of property damage. They didn’t foresee the risk and so they could not be liable – no recklessness. * HoL = Caldwell was disproved not overruled and Cunningham approved, so D was acquitted as didn’t know the risk involved / Lord Bingham = 1) for serious crimes you need to prove culpable state of mind = not thinking about risk is not blameworthy just stupid / 2) Caldwell leads to obvious unfairness- neither moral or just to convict based on what someone else would have apprehended /3) about 80% of academics, judges and practitioners criticised Caldwell / 4) most importantly Caldwell misinterpreted s1 criminal damages act * Unanimous decision by HoL adopts the Cunningham view that recklessness involves foresight of the possibility of an unjustified risk ‘ but 3 further points * Lord Steyn = â€Å"if a D closes his mind to a risk he must realise that there is a risk† = Booth v Cps = D ran across the road without looking (deliberately put risk out of his mind but was aware) * Lord Bingham = exempted self-induced intoxication * Lord Bingham = restricts his judgment to the meaning of recklessness in the criminal damage act / Lord Rodger = Caldwell may be better suited to some offences than to others e.g. reckless driving * Note that in crimes where we are only concerned with D’s behaviour we may think of recklessness as an AR element – reckless driving. It is possible to intend to drive reckless * Negligence Unlike intention and recklessness, negligence is a totally objective standard – the risk is not a perceived/foreseen one. 2 degrees of negligence Simple negligence = failing to confirm Gross negligence = major departure of reasonable person – manslaughter Whether negligence is a form of MR is debateable, because the literal translation is that of the ‘guilty mind’. Cognitive = negligence is a state of mind, it is a failure to think so a blank state of mind but like saying nothing is something (how can you have a degree of emptiness) Normative = when finding judgments of blameworthiness , state of mind is part of the picture / D actions in the circumstances are subjected to a broader moral assessment = legitimate that negligence is part of MR – sentencing advisory panel also regard If D has special knowledge (e.g. is a firearms expert) then a higher standard will likely be expected of him. This is given statutory expression in RTA 1998 s.2A(3). On the other hand, less knowledge will not grant D any dispensation (e.g. learner driver must drive at same level as qualified driver). â€Å"knew or ought to have known† imposes that objective standard where special knowledge is included but limited is not. R v C – paranoid schizophrenic appealed a conviction on the basis that the judge should have directed the jury to take his mental illness into account. Not so. Negligence is an objective test and mental illness is irrelevant. Sometimes we are willing to lower the standard of care, for example for children – R (RSPCA) v C (25 year old child who failed to take her cat to a vet). Few serious crimes where negligence can generate liability. Manslaughter, causing or allowing a child to die, public nuisance. Manslaughter requires gross negligence. but change in the past 30 years for statutory offences Road Traffic Act 1998 s.3 is a crime of negligence. Other offences where negligence is an element include Sexual offences act 2003 s.9. = no exemption if believed there was consent , need to reasonably believe not honestly believe Are there degrees of negligence? From a mens rea perspective, there cannot be. But there has to be – falling just short of a standard and well below it. This is demonstrated by contrasting but similar offences in RTA 1998 S.2A and S.3. This may be to do with risk to property v risk to people? Contrast with Adomako, the jury must be required to find a degree of ‘badness’, for manslaughter is a serious crime. Perhaps the degree is less  relevant in simple road traffic cases. Should negligence be a ground of liability? Many believe negligence has no place in criminal liability.  The criminal law is viewed as a reaction to moral fault. Whether there is any sort of moral fault involved in negligent conduct is much debateable (Hall). Punishments for negligence do not deter (negligence is inadvertent) and, also, punishments for negligent homicide tend to be quite light anyway. (Hall). Some disagree – Brett points out that drivers become more careful when there is police presence on the road. Hart supported a more subjectivist approach, taking into account mental and physical capabilities [characteristics and capacity should be taken into account] The law commissioner similarly endorsed in relation to gross negligence for the purpose of negligence Hybrid offences = some countries have due diligence laws, which replace strict liability with negligence. D committed the AR, but if he took all reasonable steps to prevent it, he may avoid liability [burden shifts to D to prove they were not negligent e.g. if found with drugs proving you thought it was something else]. English courts have been disinclined to use this method (although Sweet v Parsley looked favourably upon it). Hall suggests limiting insurance protection for those civilly negligent, more vigorous controls of licenses e.g. driving, and education etc.

Lawrences The Horse Dealers Daughter versus a Soap Opera :: essays research papers

D.H. Lawrence's "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" could be described as a story in which boy meets girl. Its plot, on the surface, resembles that of any number of traditionally romantic pastorals: a country boy saves a country girl from drowning, sees something in her that he never saw before, and, at the end of the story, proposes marriage. In this day, this story would get made into a soap opera, and would be called ?Mabel?. This story deals with everyday soap life and has the thick plot that only soap can hold a candle to. In this story, the horse dealer's daughter is a young woman named Mabel, who has recently discovered that her family has lost all its money, her brothers can go off and make their own way in the world, but Mabel has nowhere to go. There are a few options open to her -- going to live with a sister, becoming a servant -- but she has run her family's household ever since her mother's death and none of these options are acceptable to her. Her third option is introduce, while Mabel is cutting the grass around her mother?s grave. This option is what brings the soap form dry and boring, to a matter of ?life and death?, going to her mother literally, through death, rather than just figuratively through a sense of unity with the departed one. This is also the part when the man, who is Dr. Jack Fergusson, comes in and sweeps her off of her feet. Now logic would tell us that the reason Jack felt free to undress Mabel was that he is a doctor. Doctors do not look at naked women in the same way as, for example, a lover would, there is absolutely no reason to believe that he has ever looked at Mabel lustfully, or even lovingly, before. But Lawrence seems to argue that by plucking the doomed Mabel out of the water, by bringing her back into the world, Jack has assumed responsibility for her. The most traditional way for a young unmarried man to assume responsibility for a young unmarried woman is to marry her. Consequently Mabel assumes that Jack must love her, since he has brought her back to the world of the living and purports to take care of her. The fact that he has removed her clothes (as a husband would) only seals their compact.

Assignment 1 Ptlls, Level 4

Assignment 1 – PTLLS – Level 4 Task 1. Establishing ground rules and promoting appropriate behaviour. Level 4. Explain the different approaches you have discovered for establishing ground rules to value the contributions of others and understand the need for respect?Ground rules can be agreed as a group or as a class, having a mutual agreement from the class helps establish and promote respect for each other, knowing what is intended from the class and taking responsibility for learning as individuals and as a group, as working as a team and respecting each others opinions, and agreeing to disagree, however still respecting the other person’s opinions. Discussing and agreeing ground rules with the class makes for transparency and openness with the class and individual awareness of this matter.Ideally it may resolve any animosity. Inclusive learning is about recognizing that each learner is different from other learners in many ways. As a teacher; you need to work in partnership with your learners to ensure that learning is effective. Partnerships always work best when both sides know where they stand. If your learners understand what is required of them and what they can expect from you, they are more likely to make the necessary commitment to learning and to be successful in achieving their aims and ambitions. Gravells and Simpson 2008, p. 21) Promoting appropriate behaviour so that individuals respect each other and this would also help eradicate bullying style of behaviour. Although, you would think this would not happen with adults, however it does. ‘The know it all’, explaining to the class whilst interrupting teaching, giving too many personal experiences or examples, this can be really frustrating for the learner, who needs to listen and understand the point of the teacher.Once ground rules have been established this would make the individual / class aware of their own behaviour for example ‘only having one convers ation at a time in the class’ and ‘respecting other people’s contributions’. Has adults in a further education environment, one would know how to behave appropriately. Ice-breakers are a great way of getting to know each other, having fun and knowing something about someone can also promote respect. Well-chosen icebreakers can ease learners through the discomfort of getting to know others, and the teacher better.They can help to set a positive atmosphere for learner interactions and encourage interest in the overall learning experience. (Gravells and Simpson 2008, p. 10) Having boundaries for a teacher and learner also promotes respect and appropriate behaviour for the teacher and the learners. This may include personal space, physical contact, other students within the institution, the age of the student being taught, the location: college, work place, training etc.This is also to safe guard minors, well being, duty of care, equality and work ethics, it i s important not to overstep these. For example; if a teacher accepts a gift such as money or diamonds, this maybe considered has favourtism, bribery, (boundaries can be agreed about giving / receiving gifts, thus the type of gift presented to either party) and if a teacher gives gifts to a minor this maybe considered as grooming, it is important not to overstep this grey area. (Gravells and Simpson 2008, p. 1 and 12) explains the reasoning behind ground rules: Agreeing ground rules with learners Under the new Professional Standards for Teachers, Tutors and Trainers in the Lifelong Learning Sector your aim will be to create a safe learning environment that promotes tolerance, respect and co-operation between your learners. One of the best ways of achieving this is to develop an agreement with your learners regarding ground rules. These are rules that should be agreed by, and followed by, all learners within your group.Involving your learners in the process encourages them to take res ponsibility and ownership for their own learning. Your learners will learn best in an environment in which they are able to participate, voice their opinions, ask questions and be actively involved in determining how they will learn. Ground rules should be agreed by the whole group rather than imposed by you. By showing an interest in their decisions, you are communicating with your learners that they are valued as individuals, who bring useful skills and knowledge to the session.You might think that they will agree to switch off their mobile phones and arrive on time. However, it might be useful to get them to think about dividing their ground rules into rights and responsibilities; for example: †¢ We have a right to: o Be treated with respect; o Be listened to; o Be assured of confidentiality. †¢ We have a responsibility to: o Be on time for sessions; o Not disrupt the session; o Switch off mobile phones. (Gravells and Simpson 2008, p. 11 and 12)We all have a right to le arn, listen and contribute in class, as individuals will have their own intent for how and what end results they desire. Knowing this contributes to respect for others, as we all have different learning styles. Has an individual has paid to study and not be disrespected by anyone within the location and in the class. Word Count: 814 Reference List: Gravells, A. and Simpson, S. (2008) Planning and Enabling Learning in the Lifelong Learning Sector Learning Matters Ltd. Exeter.

Consumer Behaviour - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 590 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/09/16 Category Marketing Essay Type Argumentative essay Tags: Consumer Rights Essay Did you like this example? Consumer behaviour GHANSHYAM SINGH What kind of decision process can you expect in the following cases and why ? (a) Purchase of a greeting card for a close friend. (b) Purchase of an after shave lotion/moisturizer. Ans. Before giving answer to both questions first of all we must know what product involvement and purchase involvement). because meaning of both term determine direction of decision . Purchase involvement – As the level of concern for, or interest in, the purchase process triggered by the need to consider a particular purchase. Thus, purchase involvement is temporary state of individual or household. It influenced by loat many factors Product involvement involvement of consumer towards particular brand (a) LIMITED DECISION MAKING PROCESS- In process of purchasing a greeting card for close friend involve â€Å"limited decision making purchase process†. Limited decision making process involve few alternative and simple decision rules and a little post purchase evalution Why- limited decision making process occurs in some emotional and situational needs. Purchasing a greeting card for friend also influenced by our emotion and situation . Situational factor affect in this manner like for what type of occasion we are presenting greeting card to our friend. it may be occasion of birthday, achievement and some other occasion Emotion – our friend ship is product of our emotional bonding with some one and emotional attachment always form limited decision making . purchasing of product you always anticipate what would be impression of my card. In limited decision making Use and post purchase of given vary less importance because product ( greeting card )would be use by some another person who still have not form his expectation abut particular brand. (b) Purchase of an after shave lotion/moisturizer- Nominal decision making Purchase shave lotion involve nominal decision making because nominal decision making referred al so as a habitual decision making which occur at number of time such as purchasing of lotion also happen number of time .. n nominal decision process problem is recognized ,internal search provide one solution what type of LOTION you are using previously ,what is your preferred brand and evaluation occurs only when if previous LOTION brand fails to perform . Nominal decision making occur when low purchase and involvement . in case of purchasing of LOTION there is very less purchase involvement because person are more conscious about brand of LOTION. 2. How would knowledge of perception learning help you in designing your marketing program for the following products and services? Justify your answer with reasons. a. Disposable Diapers Designing market programme for Disposable diapers we need to develop and evaluate for Ps of marketing to position product in mind of our prospective customer We have to develop retail strategy, brand strategy ,advertisement and design labelling . for developing our all strategy a marketer need to understand fact of perception and learning How learning and perception help1. In disposable diaper our targeted group is child less than 3year but we will approach our target group through parent of children so perceiveness of parent towards product would determine success and strategy for diapers. . For example in case of retail strategy self position and shelf space would determine allocation of diaper in store . 3. Diaper is less less involvement so it would placed in less expensive mode of media strategy because people perceive diaper is low value product 4. Advertisement must perform two critical factor capture attention and convey meaning . for effective advertising of diaper first of we need to determine what would be proper stimulus to infuse right meaning of use of diaper . their learning would also effect it Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Consumer Behaviour" essay for you Create order