An Analysis of a Consequentialist Claim in the Dalai Lama Essay

An Analysis of a Consequentialist Claim in the Dalai Lama - Essay Example Issues to do with the rise in population and the advancement of technology are affecting the nature. He says that the environmental disasters being witnessed are due to our irresponsible behavior. Lama gives a case example of Tibet where he grew up and the changes in environment that have undergone in the past years and its consequences (Gyatso 1). According to Lama, Tibet was once a wildlife paradise. The wildlife in Tibet was rarely hunted and hunting only occurred in the remote areas where crops could not be planted. It was a custom for the government officials to make a proclamation on protecting wildlife. He claims that there were no provisions to harm the animals whether on land or in water, in fact, the only animals allowed to do so were the wolves and rats. However, the contribution of hunting in the loss of wildlife is not significant (Gyatso 1). He offers a vivid picture of Tibet when he was young. During his travelling at that time, he used to see a number of species on the way. These species range from mammals to birds. He recalls how he interacted with the animals and other forms of nature (Gyatso 1). The wildlife is long gone and this is due to the loss of habitat and partly due to hunting. Only a small fraction of the habitat remains in Tibet. The forests in Tibet are also gone; he compares the present state of Tibet forest with a clean shaven monk’s head. He says that the solutions lie within us and there is need to fix our behaviors not the environment; technology does not offer most of the solutions (Gyatso 1). The argument of Dalai Lama is valid to some extent. The source of environmental destruction is from the human beings. This is true because most of the activities done by human beings including industrialization affect the environment negatively. Most of the environmental disasters like floods are due to deforestation and the destruction of habitats. Thus, his claim that environmental disasters are due to our irresponsible

Law Of International Insurance contracts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words - 1

Law Of International Insurance contracts - Essay Example The Convention recognized the inherent risks of the aviation industry, thus, it seek to protect the airline companies by putting limitations on its liabilities towards it passengers and cargo. To strike a balance between protecting the interest of the airline companies and protecting the welfare of the passengers, the framers of the Warsaw Convention 1929 instituted provisions that define the certain terms. Section 17 of the Warsaw convention specifically said that, â€Å"The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. â€Å" The definition of â€Å"accident† according to the Warsaw Convention has been the subject of many debates and arguments in and outside of the courts for several years. In settling arguments, the courts have defined the word â€Å"accident† in many decided cases both in the United States and the in the United Kingdom. To get a clearer picture of how the courts define the word â€Å"accident† and how this definition has affected the insurable interests of aircrafts and their passengers, let us take a closer look at the leading cases decided by the Courts. The definition of the word â€Å"accident† in the airline industry is the same in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Note that the Warsaw Convention was meant to establish a uniform liability of airline companies towards their passengers thus, the courts, in defining the word â€Å"accident† according to Article 17 of the convention, adopt a more or less interpretation. According to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, it is not enough that the carrier failed to convince the court that it took all necessary

Canada and Chemical Weapons :: Canadian Canada History

Canada and Chemical Weapons Chemical weapons date back the Peloponnesian war of 428-424 BC when they were used against the Spartans; the chemicals used were incendiary devices and sulfur-based gases that were blown by the wind onto besieged cities. The chemical weapons used then aren't nearly as deadly as those used in more recent times such as mustard gas, they were more to cause there enemies to retreat. There have been many incidents in history in which chemical weapons have been used as I have found in two articles on the history of chemical weapons. The articles I found are "A Short History of Chemical Weapons", and "Creating the Faith: The Canadian Gas Services in the First World War". Chemical weapons have been used in many occasions in war, including Ancient Times, The Middle Ages, World War I, and World War II and so on throughout time. Many kinds of chemical weapons have been used but modern chemical weapons started on April 22, 1915, with the Germans use of Chlorine gas on the Allie troops in WWI. In this incident 6,000 cylinders of the gas were released by 2 battalions along a 6 kilometer of the front, and the wind dispersed the clouds of gas killing 5,000 soldiers and putting 1,500 more out of the war. This caused great panic because nothing like this had happened before and wasn't expected by the allies. Previous to this event in the Middle Ages they used such things as arsenic and more natural things as chemicals which were as powerful as the chlorine gas ended up being in WWI. Chemical weapons were used many times after the Germans used chlorine gas in WWI, chlorine, phosgene, benzyl bromide, hydrogen cyanide, and then mustard gas in 1917. Mustard gas bec ame the worst and most popular chemical weapon used when it came out because of how harmful it was to the enemies; in addition it was figured that 1,300,000 soldiers were killed by the chemical weapons by the end of WWI. This essay stated that: "If the first World War had continued for yet another year it would indeed have been called the first Chemical War" (A Short History of Chemical Weapons) In WWII the use of chemical weapons decreased a lot and was only used in the Far East. Since WWI has really been called the birthplace of chemical weapons Tim Cook starts his article there with the Germans use of chlorine gas and how chemical weapon use escalated from that point.

Criminal Law Revision Notes

Homicide †¢  ·Law: X's actions toward Y may constitute homicide, which pursuant to s 277 is unlawful killing of a person. Depending on the circumstances, under s 277 an unlawful (s268) killing is either murder or manslaughter. Killing is defined in s 270 as causing the death of another directly or indirectly by any means. Death is defined under 13C of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) as the irreversible cessation of circulation or brain function. A person capable of being killed is defined under s 269 as a person completely proceeded in a living state from their mother. Y is a person. Y is dead’ †¢ Variable for s269: Where an injury is done to an unborn child who then dies after birth it must be established that the prior injuries are a valid cause of death. In the case of Martin v R it was held that a causal link can be drawn between injury to a foetus and the death of that child after birth. Specific reference was made in the case to s 271 where â€Å"a child di es in consequence of acts done †¦ by any person before or during birth, the person who did †¦ such act is deemed to have killed the child. †¢ Causation – Proof of causation requires satisfaction of both factual and legal elements (Royall; Krakouer) [what you need to look at is the causation between the act and the death, so when you apply the tests, you pick a specific action of the accused. If there is no action, then you look at omission. ] ? Factual – Generally easy to establish factual causation under the ‘but-for' test (Royall). Variable: However, it does not apply in cases of an innocent agent (White v Ridley) or in cases of omission, unless there was a duty and the actions are reasonable in the circumstances (duties ss 262-267). Apply to facts by stating very precisely . ’but for Y doing specifically this, X would not have done this and hence not died] ? Legal – Royall established four tests for legal causation. In difficult ca ses the operative and substantial cause is best. (1) Operating and substantial cause (2) Natural consequence (3) Reasonable foresight (4) Common sense (Campbell) ? Variable for causation: Behaviour of accused need not be sole cause of death (Krakouer) ? Novus Actus Interveniens: (1) Section 272 and Royall: actions of escaping victim will not reak the chain if fear of death or harm is reasonable and well founded. (2) Section 275: medical treatment of victim will not break chain if reasonably proper in circumstances and applied in good faith. Treatment includes all acts and omissions in the management of the patient (Cook). Turning off life support is not novus actus; original assault is still operative and substantial cause of death (Kanish). (1) Section 23B and R v Martyr: Abnormality or weakness in victim will not break chain. Must take victim as you find them. (3) R v Hallet: natural event will not break chain if it is reasonable foreseeable. 4) R v Pagett: Actions of third party will not break the chain if actions are an obvious result of what first person did. (5) Section 261: Consent to death is immaterial to issue of responsibility. †¢ Intention: The fault element in s 279(1)(a) is an intention to kill, and under s 279(1)(b) it is an intention to do bodily injury which endangers or is likely to endanger life. Intention is not defined in the code. In R v Willmot intention is defined as having the consequence of an action in mind. The intention is inferred from the act if the immediate consequences are obvious and inevitable (Parker v The Queen). Code: ? s279(1)(a): intention to kill is murder ? s279(1)(b): Intention to cause bodily injury of a nature that endangers or is likely (Hind v Harwood) to endanger life is murder. ? s279(1)(c): (1) Death is caused by an act; (2) done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose; (3)which is of the nature to be likely to endanger life. A ‘further' unlawful purpose other than killing (Stuart v The Queen). Li kely is define as a substantial (real and not remote) chance (Hind v Harwood). ? s280: Manslaughter is unlawful killing that is not murder (due to lack of intention). ? 281: unlawful assault (s 222) causing death: Defence against manslaughter (s 23B accident). Only 2 elements must be proved: assault (s 222) and death caused. [you only get to 281 after you have said that there is a defence of 23B. although, maybe not, it could also be lackof causation, but it’s not really correct here with murder/manslaughter]  · Defences: ? 23A: lack of will ? 23B: accident ? 24: mistake of fact ? Mistake of law should be here too, if only to state that it is not relevant ? 27: insanity ? 28: intoxication ? 29: immaturity ? 248: self-defence Stealing, s378, 371 Law: It is an offence to steal under s 378. The elements (s371) to be satisfied are that (1) taking or converting; (2) a thing capable of being stolen; (3) with fraudulent intent. ? A thing capable of being stolen is defined in s 370 . Anything which is the property of a person that is moveable (para 1), able to be made moveable (para 2), wild (para 4)and tame animals (para 3), electricity (s390), use of a computer (s440A), or any thing capable of ownership. Doesn’t matter if belongs to person who’s taking for this element ? Taking is not defined in the Code.It is defined in Wallis v Lane as moving (Clemesha) a thing from the place it originally occupied. Conversion is also not in the Code. In Illich it is defined as dealing with an object in a way that is inconsistent with the right of the owner (not a physical movement). Defence of mistake of fact can occur at this point where there is a mistake as to the identity of transferee (Middleton), identity of thing delivered (Ashwell), and as to the quantity of thing delivered (Russell v Smith), except with money where ownership passes at point of transfer irrespective of mistake (Illich). Fraudulent intent is outlined in s 371(2)(a) to (f). It is: (a) an intent to permanently deprive owner of the thing; [add: and to depreive of substantial value, caselaw] (b) an intent to permanently deprive any person who has any special property in the thing. The intent can be inferred from the circumstances and the manner in which the accused deals with the property (Foster v R). An intent to deprive the owner substantially of its value is equivalent to an outright taking (R v Smails); special property see after (f) (c) An intent to use as security.This applies only where the thing is pledged or given as security to a third party. Does not apply where accused holds property until a debt owed to them by the owner of the property is paid (Parker); (d) An intent to part with it on a condition as to its return; (e) An intent to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the original condition – must have changed significantly (Bailey); or (f) An intent to use money at will, even though person taking may intend to repay owne r. Variable: Under s371(5) conversion of lost property is not fraudulent if, at time of conversion, person taking/converting does not know who owner is AND reasonably believes that owner cannot be discovered. †¢ Variable: Doctrine of recent possession allows a jury to draw an inference of stealing or receiving where accused is found in possession of stolen goods soon after their theft and has no reasonable explanation as to how they came into their possession, Bruce v The Queen.  · Defence: Legal claim of right (s22) means accused had an honest, but not necessarily reasonable, belief that the property was theirs ( ).Robbery, s392 †¢ Law: Robbery is a compound offence defined in s392 as (1) stealing; (2) using actual/ threatened violence at/ immediately before/immediately after time of stealing; (3) to obtain thing stolen; OR (4) to prevent/overcome resistance to its being stolen. †¢ Prosecution must prove offence of stealing (as outlined on previous page). †¢ A ctual or threatened violence only has be be small to fulfill this element (R v Jerome). It only needs to be of such nature as to show that it was intended to overpower the party robbed, not merely to get possession (R v Gnosit). At, immediately before or after time of stealing includes the use of violence to escape or overcome resistance (R v Hay). †¢ Stealing has a fault element, but robbery has the added fault element of using the actual or threatened violence in order to obtain thing stolen or prevent resistance. †¢ Circumstances of aggravation under s391 include when (1) the offender is accompanied; (2) offender does bodily harm to any person; (3) offender threatens to kill any person; or (4) person to whom violence used/threatened is over 60. Burglary, s401 Law: Burglary is defined in s401 as (1) entering or beings or is; (2) at a place; (3) without consent of the owner; (4) with an intention to commit an offence OR actually committing an offence. ? Enter or be is def ined in s400 as inserting part of body OR instrument into building. ? Place is defined is s400 as Building, structure, tent, or conveyance, or part of building etc. Conveyance in s1 means vehicle, vessel, or aircraft. [if none of these, you mustlook at statutory interpretation, eg with a garden] ? Without the consent of the owner includes beyond consent of owner (Barker v The Queen). can be implied eg where a gate is open or a door. But only implied for legitimate purpose, not to commit a crime] ? Intention to commit an offence (fault element) can be formed prior to entry, or may be formed after entering building (Barker v The Queen). †¢ Circumstances of aggravation under s400 include when a person (1) has, or pretends to have, a weapon; (2) is accompanied; (3) does bodily harm to another; (4) threatens to kill or injure; (5) knows, or should have known, that there was someone in the place. Criminal Damage and Destruction, s444 Law: Criminal damage is the (1) wilful (s443) and (2) unlawful (s441); (3) damage or destruction (s1); (4) of any property (s1). Start with 4 then 3 then 1 and 2 (4) Property is define in s1 as any animate or inanimate thing capable of being the subject of ownership. (3) Damage or destroy is defined in Zischke as being when something is rendered imperfect or inoperative. Damage that is impermanent, ie remediable, is still damage unless it’s transient like chalk on a jumper. (1) Wilfully (s443) means an act or omission with the intention to damage or destroy, OR with knowledge or belief of likelihood of damage or destruction. Likelihood is (Hind v Harwood; Lockwood) a real and not remote chance, regardless of whether it is less or more than 50 per cent. ? Omission was discussed in Miller. At the point a person becomes aware of the damage occuring, they have a duty to act. (2) Unlawfully (s441) means (1) injury to property of another (i. e. Not own and not abandoned); (2) without consent; AND (3) with no authorisation, justifi cation or excuse. †¢ Defence of person or property (s441(3)) can be used if injury is deemed on reasonable grounds to be imminent. Force used must be reasonable.Common Assault, ss222, 313 †¢ Law: There are two types of assault defined in s222 of the Code: Physical assault and threat of assault. To fulfill the requirements of physical assault there must be (1) striking, touching, moving or otherwise applying force; (2) directly or indirectly; (3) to another person; without the consent of the other OR with fraudulently obtaining consent. An assault is unlawful unless authorised, justified or excused by law (s223). Fault element †¢ According to s 23 no intention is required for an offence unless stated in the offence.However, in Hall v Fonceca it was found that an intention on the part of the assailant either to use force or to create an apprehension in the victim is an element in an assault. †¢ Unlawful: an assault is always unlawful unless authorised, justified or excused by law (s223). It may also be unlawful if the person consents to the assault. †¢ Indirect force: Includes heat, light, gas or any other substance IF applied to a degree to cause injury or physical discomfort. (1) Queen v Jacob – electrical trap (2) Martin – bar across exit (3)DPP v K – acid in hand dryer (4) Gibbon v Pepper – causing horse to run someone over †¢ Without consent: Consent can be express or implied, and it must be freely given (not obtained by fraud). (1) Boughey v R: consent to accidental physical contact of ordinary life is impliedly consented to; (2) Collins v Wilcock: ‘commonplace intentional but non-hostile acts’ are impliedly consented to. (3) Pallante v Stadiums: Sporting context: contact within rules and intention of sports game. (4) Ferguson: Teaching context: touching student to ‘encourage. †¢ Law: To fulfill he requirements of threat of assault there must be (1) a bodily act or gesture (w ords not enough in WA, but sometimes needs to be discussed anyway where there is maybe just a twitch); (2) which represents actual or apparent present ability to apply force; (3) without consent OR with fraudulently obtaining consent.. †¢ Threatening words are insufficient. †¢ A conditional threat is also not a true threat of assault because the victim can avoid the threatened act (Rosza v Samuals; Cf Turberville v Savage).  · The victim need not actually fear the bodily act or gesture (Brady v Schatzel).Fault element †¢ According to s 23 no intention is required for an offence unless stated in the offence. However, in Hall v Fonceca it was found that an intention on the part of the assailant either to use force or to create an apprehension in the victim is an element in an assault. †¢ Unlawful: an assault is always unlawful unless authorised, justified or excused by law (s223). It may also be unlawful if the person consents to the assault. Offences  · s313: common assault  · s317: assault occasioning bodily harm (unlawful assault + harm).Section 1 defines bodily harm as any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort. No extra fault element required. ? Lergesner v Carroll: broad interpretation. Extends to, for example, black eye from fight. ? Scatchard: pain does not necessarily equate to bodily harm. ? Chan-Fook : psychological harm.  · s317A: assault with intent to: ? commit crime ? do GBH ? resist lawful arrest/detention.  · s318: Serious assault is on a public officer (while they are on duty), a person performing a public function conferred on them by law, or person helping someone in the previous two categories. s304: acts/omissions causing bodily harm require establishing an existing duty (ss262-267), a breach of that duty and resulting bodily harm. If there is no harm, the must be endangerment of another's life/health/safety. Endangering life and health Definitions  · Grievous bodily harm ? s1 – any bodi ly injury that endangers/ is likely to endanger life, or causes/ is likely to cause permanent injury to health. ? R v Tranby: permanent disfigurement that is only cosmetic does not = GBH. ? Consent is not an element of GBH, therefore unlike assault, GBH cannot be consented to (Raabe)  · Wounding ?Devine v R: occurs when injury breaks skin & penetrates below epidermis. ? Consent and wounding: Common law rule says that a person may not consent to bodily harm unless there’s a public policy justification- R v Brown. Offences with no specific intention  · Unlawfully doing GBH, s297 ? Can be direct/indirect act – R v Clark. All that must be proved is that a person negligently breached his/her duty. Proof of intention to harm is not necessary. ? ‘unlawful’ – to be given ordinary meaning of ‘prohibited by law’: Houghton v The Queen †¢ Relevance of s23A, s23B/ negligence  · Unlawfully wounding – s301(1)Offences requiring a spec ific intention †¢ s294, Acts intended to cause GBH or prevent arrest. †¢ GBH + certain intention: ? an intention to maim, disfigure or disable any person; or ? an intention to do grievous bodily harm; or ? an intention to resist or prevent lawful arrest or detention; or †¢ Administering noxious thing – s301(2) ? Cause poison or noxious thing to be administered or taken + ? Intention to injure or annoy Threats, s338 [not in exam] The definition of threat in s338 is very wide and includes any statement or behaviour that might reasonably constitute a threat to: (a) ill, injure, endanger or harm any person; (b) destroy, damage, endanger or harm any property; (c) take or exercise control over any building, structure, or conveyance by force or violence; OR (d) cause a detriment of any kind to any person. The threat must be to do one of the things in s338A:. a) Gain a benefit b) Cause a detriment c) Prevent someone doing something d) Make someone do something What doe s detrimental mean? ? R v Zaphir: ? â€Å"a threat is some sort of indication of intention to cause harm or damage or to punish. † ? Detriment means â€Å"loss or disadvantage, or damage as opposed to benefit. ? To satisfy the offence â€Å"a threat must be of such nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal ability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand† Offences ? ? s338A Threats with intent to influence s338B Threats Stalking, s338D [not in exam] s338D defines: intimidate, pursue, circumstances of aggravation. Offences: s338E(1) †¢ Pursuing with †¢ intention to intimidate s338E(2) †¢ Pursuing that †¢ Can be reasonably expected to intimidate AND †¢ Does intimidate Legal Capacity (defences) Children Law: A Child is deemed to be incapable of committing a crime, irrespective of what they have done. Under s29 a child under 10 years is presumed incapable (not rebuttable). Between 10 and 14 the presumption of incapacity is rebuttable if it is proved by prosecution that at the time of the offence that child knew that the conduct was wrong according to the standards of ordinary people – M (1977). It is not clear if this test means legally or morally wrong. Child does not need to know act was against the law. They need to know that what they did was seriously wrong as opposed to just naughty. †¢ Following facts should be taken into account: Age: â€Å"the lower the child is on the scale between ten and fourteen, the stronger the evidence necessary to rebut that presumption†: B v R (1958) 44 Cr App R 1 at 3 ? Type of offence: Heinousness, Ferocity, Nature. Was there a victim? L v DPP = the more heinous the crime the easier it is to rebut the presumption. ? Statements by child: Does it really show an understanding ? Expert evidence ? Presumption of normality (what is normal? ) ? Conduct surrounding the act: Luring victim, trying to cove r tracks, running away (= not conclusive, as children will run away if have done something merely naughty). Mode of committing the act: Positive act versus omission, degree of participation, peer influence ? Home background: Abuse at home; physical environment; upbringing. (White (1964) – behaviour the result of socialisation. ? Appearance & demeanour in court ? Past criminal record: can be used if similar fact evidence ? Different culture ? The child has to know that it was wrong at time of act, not when picked up/ questioned. Corporations (look in exam question for â€Å"Pty Ltd† which should indicate whether person or corporation is being charged) †¢ Law: Corporations can commit offences.In the Code corporations come under the definition of a person. And under s69(1) of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) all indictable and summary offences apply to bodies corporate as well as individuals. †¢ Identification Liability: (= preferred test) : â€Å"A corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who for some purposes may be called an agent, but who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation. † Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd. Vicarious Liability: attributing to employer what an employee does in the course of employment. Torts test, too wide. Defences: Mental Capacity Intention and motive, s23 The result intended to be caused by an act/omission is immaterial, unless intention is expressly declared to be an element of the offence. The motive for an act/omission/intention is immaterial, unless otherwise expressly declared. Voluntariness of will s23A, 23B 23A: Lack of will †¢ Law: A person is not criminally responsible for an act/omission that is independent of his/her will (not available as a defence where there is a duty of care owed under Ch 27). Act: At c ommon law an act can be defined both narrowly and broadly (both should be considered: If narrow view taken, charge under s 266 still possible. ) which ones do the court tend to follow nowadays? ? Narrow definition: any bodily action, e. g pulling trigger of gun: Kaporonovski. ? Broad definition: includes all physical conduct that caused death, e. g. from getting loaded firearm to pulling trigger: Falconer. †¢ Will: Examples of unwilled acts are:An involuntary response to external stimulus (e. g. bee sting) is unwilled. An act done whilst sleepwalking is unwilled (R v Holmes).An act done whilst asleep is unwilled (Michael Jiminez) – although D may be liable for act/omission immediately before falling asleep, eg driving while tired. †¢ Sane Automatism describes a mental state where the D lacks awareness of their actions during the commission of a serious offence. Any act occurring independent of the will of the D whilst in a state of sane automatism is unwilled. In co ntrast to insanity, sane automatism is the result of an external stimulus (eg sudden physical/ psychological trauma, hypoglycaemia). Insanity results from an internal mental disorder (Falconer). Test to distinguish SA from insanity (Falconer): ? Too complicated! ? In an exam, this would not help you, I am sure. It’s ot about who needs to prove what, as when you arguing something in the exam, hardly ever will YOU be able to meet the standard of proof as it’s always ambiguous. You need to set out some of the limbs of the focloner test, eg (and most importantly) the test of the reasonable person. What characteristics does that person have? It’s the reasonable person in the same situation as the accused, but not with their specific weaknesses (eg an additional depression). If they wold have done the same = sane automatism.Another thing you look at is whether one off event (unlikely to reoccur) or they’ve got a screw loose (= will likely do it again cos they l ack some control over their actions generally] ? 1st step: Has Crown disproved sane automatism? (Standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt. Onus of proof: on Crown). If not, unqualified acquittal. ? 2nd step: If so, has D proved insanity under s 27? (first question is: is there a mental impairment as opposed to an external blow, before you even get to the capacities) Was one of the 3 capacities in s27 absent? Standard of proof: on balance of probabilities.Onus of Proof: on D, since s 26 presumes every person to be of sound mind). If so, acquittal with provision that accused was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. ? If sane automatism is disproved and the D does not prove insanity under s 27, jury must consider whether the other elements of the offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If so, proper verdict is guilty (Falconer). 23B: accident †¢ A person is not criminally responsible for an event which occurs by accident (not available as a defence where there i s a duty of care owed under Ch 27: R v Hodgetts and Jackson). ‘event’ means the ‘result or consequence of an action’ (Van Den Bemd). †¢ ‘accident’: Kaporonovski, Taiters: an event is only an accident if it 1. was not intended 2. was not foreseen by the defendant (subjective element) AND 3. was not reasonably foreseeable by an ordinary person (objective element) Evidentiary burden: on accused. Onus of proof: on prosection to disprove 1, 2 OR 3 beyond reasonable doubt. [they only need to disprove one for the defence to fall] Causation: P must prove that D caused a particular outcome if the outcome is an element of the offence. Causation established by tests in Royall). Can be difficult to distinguish between proof of causation and obligation of P to negative accident (Jemielita). †¢ If death/GBH by a deliberate use of force, the fact that it would not have occurred but for an abnormality/defect/weakness in the victim is not a defense, e ven if the accused did not intend/foresee the death/GBH and even if it was not reasonably foreseeable. Insanity ss26, 27 †¢ Law: Pursuant to s26, the accused is presumed to understand the consequences of their actions and is capable of acting rationally.This presumption must be disproved by the accused (Falconer) on the balance of probabilities (R v Porter). Accused also carries the evidentiary burden of establishing that their mental impairment deprived them of ONE of the THREE capacities in s27 (McNaghten’s Case, approved by R v Porter): (1) understand what they were doing (refers to physical consequences of action, not moral qualities); OR (2) control their actions (e. g irresistible impulses: Moore, Soderman v the King); OR (3) know that they ought not do the act or make the omission (similar to test used to assess children). Mental impairment [comes before the capacities]is defined in s1 as an intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility. The Co mmon law helps distinguish sane and insane automatism. (1) The state of mind must be one of disease, disorder or disturbance arising from some infirmity, whether temporary or long standing (R v Porter); (2) NO need for physical deterioration of brain; (3) A defect of reasoning caused by physical disease unrelated to mind could be insanity (R v Kemp). (4) Insanity is internal, with no external physical cause (Cooper v McKenna); (5)Insanity caused by medical treatment of physical disease (eg. Insulin) will not be insanity if self induced (R v Quick). Some result are contentious. Hyperglycemia was held to be a desease of the mind (R v Hennessy). Hypoglycemia was not held to be internal (R v Quick). (6) Sane automatism is a reaction to a once-off psychological trauma, test is: Would ordinary person react the same way in the circumstances? (Falconer). Yes = sane automatism, not insanity. [see comments above] †¢ Persuasive burden on prosecution (Falconer). †¢ Variable: Distingui sh from situation where accused unfit to stand trial. Consequence: no full acquittal, but rather ‘not guilty by reason of insanity'. May mean indefinite detention in appropriate institution. Intoxication s28 †¢ Law: Intoxication (by drugs/alcohol/any other means) may be used as a basis for a defence of insanity under s 27 as long as it was not self-induced. Where intention to cause a specific result is an element of an offence, intoxication may be considered when deciding whether intention existed. Onus on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt: 1. That such intention existed AND 2.That accused was capable of forming the intention, and did in fact form the intention. (R v Crump). Defences: Mistake Mistake of Fact s22 †¢ A person who does/omits to do something under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of things is only criminally responsible for the act/omission as if the real state of things had been such as he believed to exist (their delusion were true). ? Mistake must be honest: (Subjective test). ? Mistake must be reasonable: Pearce v Stanton (Objective test). ? There must be a positive belief in the existence of any state of things. Ignorance/inadvertence not enough (GJ Coles v Goldsworthy). Must be present state, not future or consequences (R v Gould and Barnes). ? Evidentiary burden: on accused. ? Onus of proof: on prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. ? Only a partial defense. †¢ Can be excluded by express or implied provisions of offences. (e. g. s 331, mistake of age cannot be a defence for sexual penetration of minor under 13) Mistake of Law s24  · Law: Ignorance of the law is not a defense to any act/omission, unless knowledge of the law is expressly declared to be an element of the offence.  ·A person is not criminally responsible for an act/omission with respect to any property in the exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud. ? They must actually believe they have the right at the time of the offence, not that they may get the right in future (R v Pollard). ? Only applies when being claimed as a defence to a property offence (Pearce v Paskov ) under the Crim Code. Defences Duress s 32 †¢ Law: Occurs when a person believes that a threat made against them will be carried out unless they do an act or make an omission. The action dictated is taken by the threatener. The act/omission must be a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be (i. e. the accused must cause less harm than the harm avoided). Emergency s 25 †¢ Occurs when the threat of sudden harm arises from the circumstances in which a person is placed. The accused decides what action to take to avoid the harm. †¢ The act /omission must be a necessary response in circumstances of ‘sudden or extraordinary emergency’ (s 25(3)(a)(i)), and it must be a reasonable response to the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be. Self defence s248An act of self-defence is lawful if: †¢ the person reasonably [3: say if that’s reasonable] [objective] believes [2: state that they believed] [subjective] that the harmful act [1: define and then state what they did] is necessary [4: look at what else they could have done and if that would have been equally suitable] to defend themselves or another person AND †¢ the response is reasonable [objective] in the circumstances as the person defending themselves reasonably [objective] believes [subjective] them to be. †¢ Self-defence is a complete defence to homicide. †¢ Technically, self-defence is an excuse.Evidential burden: on accused. Onus of proof: on Crown to negative self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt (not on accused to prove on balance of probs). †¢ Does the initial act have to be unlawful? S 5 = yes, but qualified by s 6 says a harmful act is not lawful just because the person who does it is no t criminally responsible for it (so you can defend yourself against child/insane person etc. ) (s 6 also supported by case law: Zecevic). †¢ Excessive self-defence = a partial defence. Applies when accused has killed to defend self or another but either the use of force was not necessary, or more force than necessary was used.Excessive self-defence means murder will be downgraded to manslaughter. Provocation ss245, 246 Complete defence only to offences in the definition of which assault is an element (Kaporonovski). No longer a defence to homicide. Not a defence to attempted murder (Roche), or to GBH or wounding. The following elements must be proved: †¢ The offence was against a person who offered provocation that amounted to an unlawful or wrongful act or insult. (Does the ‘insult’ also have to be ‘wrongful’? Stevens v Doglione (Qld): ‘wrongful’ applies to act and insult. Stingel (in obiter): ‘wrongful’ applies only to act, not insult.Therefore, not settled). Attempts s4 An attempt is an offence that is somehow incomplete. (If an offence is complete, don’t consider attempts unless, for example, an offence is attempted on one person but succeeds on another, e. g. A tries to shoot B but instead shoots C). not always section 4, some offence, eg assault and murder, have attempted offence in the specific section in which case you don’t look at s4 3 elements: 1. Intention to commit an offence; 2. Putting that intention into action to some extent (must go beyond ‘mere preparatory acts’) AND; 3. Failure to fulfill the intention of committing the offence. . Intention – requires †¢ An intention of bringing about all the elements of the offence OR †¢ The knowledge (to the extent of virtual certainty) that these elements will occur 2. Beyond ‘mere preparatory acts’: whether this is the case is a question of fact for the jury. Don’t just look at w hat the accused did, take into account other factors in the situation (Cutter v R) to decide whether the act that was done is convincing of the intention to commit the ultimate offence. Tests: †¢ Proximity test: (R v Eagleton): How close is the accused to committing the final act that constitutes the offence? Substantial step test: Has the accused made substantial progress towards completion of the offence? Consider how much progress has been made and what is left to do. †¢ Unequivocality test: (R v Williams): requires that there be ‘no possible innocent explanation for the accused’s conduct’. (Any conduct which might have an innocent explanation cannot be brought by the prosecution as evidence). A precise test, but considered too restrictive. †¢ Last step test: (R v Chellingworth): Has the accused taken the last step towards the completed offence? Voluntary desistance (s4, par. ): If the accused does most of the acts required to constitute the off ence but then stops, it is generally no defence (although may be considered in sentencing). Impossibility (s4, par. 3): †¢ Legal: It is impossible for the accused to commit an offence only where there is no offence at law to capture the defendant’s conduct (e. g. if the defendant mistakenly believes that it is an offence to acquire a certain weapon, but attempts to do so anyway = no offence). BUT, †¢ Factual: if the offender tries to commit an offence but the offence cannot be committed for factual reasons, this is still an attempt: English. eg, the offender tries to import drugs, but the ‘drug’ is talcum powder)’ Conspiracy: [not in exam] †¢ takes place before any preparatory action. (An offender is usually not charged with conspiracy and a completed offence. , so conspiracy is not relevant if an offence is actually committed). †¢ No definition in Code, defined in common law as ‘an agreement between 2 or more persons to achieve a common objective’ (R v Campbell). (note: agreement must be reached. Not sufficient that parties were in communication). †¢ There must be an intention to do all the elements of the offence. There must be a positive intention – recklessness will not suffice. †¢ If there is no agreement, there is no conspiracy – BUT, it is not necessary that all conspirators know one another. †¢ When 2 or more conspirators are charged, the fact that A is acquitted does not necessarily mean B will be as well (R v Darby). †¢ You can’t conspire to do something that is legally impossible. †¢ You can conspire to do something that is factually impossible. Aiding s 7(b) and (c) †¢ What is the principal offence and who is principal offender?Deal with them first †¢ Then distinguish from counselling; presence, constructive presence  · Law: Aiding is providing support, help or assistance (R v Beck) to the PO. Aid is generally given to the PO during the commission of the offence, but can be before the offence (Ancuta). If a person aids another in the commission of an offence they will be liable for the primary offence under s 7(b) or (c).  · First, there must be proof of a Principal Offence actually committed, although conviction of a Principal Offender not necessary (R v Lopuszynski). There can be joint Principal Offenders (Mohan v R). define  · (b): requires proof of assistance being given for the purpose of aiding the commission of the offence. Therefore, an accused can act with the purpose of aiding but not actually aid, and still be liable (R v Arnold).  · 7(c): does not specify mental element, but has been held that ‘aids’ means ‘knowingly aids’( Jervis v R: ‘aids’ held to be a word that carries an inherent mental element).  · In both 7(c) and (d), the accessory must have actual knowledge of the future offence they are aiding, as opposed to merely a suspicion (although this knowledge can be inferred from proof of exposure to the obvious).It is sufficient that the accused contemplates the type of crime to be committed by the PO – it is not necessary that its precise details be known (Ancuta). Recklessness, however, is an insufficient mental state for aiding. (Giorgianni).  · Variable: Where the offence is one requiring fault elements, the accused must also have actual knowledge that the principal offender possessed the fault element for the principal offence (Stokes and Difford).  ·Variable: Non-interference to prevent a crime is not an offence BUT the fact that a person is ‘voluntarily and purposely present’ and offers no opposition may be grounds for a jury to find that he aided. Positive action NOT essential (Coney). Passive presence at the scene is aid, IF the accused knows his/her presence is encouraging/supporting the PO (e. g. , combination of prior aid and continued nondissociating presence may constitute implied offer of continuing aid = aid under s7) (Beck).  · Apply to facts  · Conclude Counselling or Procuring: s 7(d)  ·Law: If a person counsels or procures another to commit an offence they will be liable for the primary offence under s 7(d).  · Procure means to provide information or material assistance to the PO, and that the provisions cause or bring about the crime (R v Beck). ‘Procuring’ involves intentionally causing the commission of the offence. Humphry v R: ‘procure’ means to produce by endeavour, and one procures a thing by setting out to see that it happens. The accused must also have an intention to assist (Georgianni v R) the PO and general knowledge of the planned crime (Ancuta).  ·Counselling means advice or encouragement (Stuart v R) before the commission of the offence. The counsel does not need to cause the crime (R v Coney). Section 9 extends liability beyond s7(d). [again, not really helpful here. You need to look at 7(d) direct, and only i f that is not gven, you mention section 9] If it is established that the accused counselled the PO to commit the offence, then a jury must determine if the offence was a probable consequence of the counsel. Probable is defined (Darkan v R) as more probable than not, or of probability less than 50/50, but more than real chance.  · Apply to facts  · Conclude Common purpose, s8Liability under s8 attaches when one of the parties goes beyond the common unlawful design/ plan. (If parties are within common plan, s7 enough for determining liability).  · Law: When two or more persons together form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose the court will regard them as joint principal offenders. The prosecution must establish that; (1) the accused formed an intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose (Brennan v R); (2) the PO committed the unlawful purpose (R v Phillips and Lawrence); and (3) the principle offence must have been a probable consequence of the prosecution of the unlawful purpose.Test of whether ‘probable consequence’ is objective (Stuart v R). Probable is defined (Darkan v R) as more probable than not, or of probability less than 50/50, but more than just a ‘substantial or real chance’. There is no liability if PO unexpectedly departs from the common purpose and commits an offence that was not within the contemplation of the accessory and was not a probable consequence of the common purpose (R v Anderson and Morris)  · Apply to facts  · Conclude Withdrawal s 8(2) †¢ Law: An accessory will not be liable until the PO is actually committed (s 8(2)).The accused can terminate their involvement and escape their liability if they; (1) withdrew from the prosecution of the unlawful purpose; (2) by words or conduct communicate their withdrawal from the unlawful purpose to those invloved in the PO; and (3) take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence (R v Menniti).  · Apply to Facts  · Conclude Fraud (not in exam) †¢ Law: Fraud is when an owner parts with their property under false pretences. It is defined in s409 as (1) any person; (2) with intent to defraud; (3) by deceit or any other fraudulent means; (4) obtains property from another person. An intent to defraud is discussed in Balcombe v De Simoni. It requires an intention to induce, and does induce, another to act  ·  · ? Deceit or other fraudulent means are generally statements of fact that the defendant knew to be untrue (R v Carpenter). But the definition is very broad. ? Obtains is defined in s1 as obtaining possession of property. Possession without ownership is enough (Seiler v R). ? Property in s1 includes everything, animate or inanimate, that is capable of ownership. Apply to facts Cobclusion

How Do I Control Box Elder Bugs in My House

Many people complain that every fall, they find dozens of red and black bugs sunning themselves on their homes. Some even find their way inside. If you have these bugs, you may spend the whole winter trying to get rid of them. What are they, and how can you keep them out of your house? Why Box Elder Bugs Invade Homes in the Fall Box elder bugs, true bugs belonging to the order Hemiptera, are known for invading homes as the temperatures begin to drop. The adult box elder bug is red and black, and about one half inch long. The good news is they are completely harmless, even in large numbers. The bad news is they can be tricky to keep out of your house, and if crushed, they emit a foul odor and may leave stains on walls or furniture. In the fall, you may see box elder bugs gathering in groups on sidewalks, walls, tree trunks, or other sunny locations. The insects congregate for warmth. Adult box elder bugs survive the winter by seeking shelter in protected locations, and your house may be the perfect place for them to stay warm. As winter approaches, the bugs make their way through any cracks or crevices in your homes exterior. How to Control Box Elder Bugs The most effective method to keep box elder bugs out of your home is to eliminate their food—seeds and sap of box elder maples, primarily. The insects also feed on other maple and ash trees, so removing all these trees from your neighborhood is probably not a practical solution. Lets assume you want to keep your trees, and just deal with the invading box elder bugs. First, make sure youve sealed any obvious cracks in your foundation, and check for openings around doors and windows. Repair or replace broken window screens. When you do see bugs in your home, use a vacuum to collect them and throw out the vacuum bag. This is the easiest way to catch them without risking squishing one and staining your wall. A mixture of dish soap and water might also work to kill box elder bugs, if sprayed directly on the insect. Box Elder Bugs Aren't Harmful Do keep in mind that box elder bugs are just a nuisance, and not harmful to your landscape plants or your family. If you can tolerate a few bugs crawling on your drapes on sunny, winter days, you might be better off waiting for spring and letting them leave on their own.

Effects of the Yom Kippur War on Arab Israeli Relation

Describe the Effects of the Yom Kippur War on Arab Israeli relations. (12 marks) The Yom Kippur War happened in October 1973, which involved the Arabs and the Israelis, as well as two superpowers, the USA and the USSR. At the end of the war, the Israelis had won. However, the Israeli government and people were shocked by how the Arabs did. The Yom Kippur War has led to a number of effects on the Arab-Israeli relations, which can be classified as two aspects, short term and long term. There are some immediate consequences caused by the Yom Kippur War. The Arabs used oil as a political weapon, which led to a huge economic problem and oil shortage in the world. On 17 October 1973, the price of oil was cut by 70 per†¦show more content†¦Consequently, the Arab world was lacking a clear leader. Syria attempted to take this position, but didn’t success. Also, after the war, Egypt moved towards USA away from USSR, which means Egypt was no longer close to USSR. Instead, they improved the relationship with USA as the USSR did not support them much during the war. Trust was lost between USSR and Egypt. The long term effects brought by the war can be divided into a few points. The world opinion changed after the Yom Kippur War. Militarily, the Israelis won. They had shown their weapons, their training and their strategies were the better ones. But politically, it was a victory for the Arabs. They had completely surprised the Israelis and the rest of the world in the war. They now let the world know that Arab soldiers could fight with courage. Because of the war, Egyptians became more confident in themselves. They thought that Israel had only been saved by the United States. The thought that Israel is so strong that might not be defeated had been destroyed. After the war, the world was not on the side of Israel anymore. In contrast, there was much more sympathy for the Arab position. Above all, they had done everything together, especially in the use of the oil weapon. As a result, the rest of the world showed much mo re respect for the Arabs. This is the first war in which theShow MoreRelatedThe War Of Israel And Israel1017 Words   |  5 Pagesat the conclusion of the six-day war in 1967 (June 5- June 10) where Israel defeated Egypt. This victory by Israel ultimately led to the Jewish nation multiplying in size dramatically as it was now four times larger than it was prior to the war. The main acquisitions through winning the war for Israel was the strip of Gaza along with the nearly 24,000 square miles Sinai Peninsula but also included East Jerusalem, Jordan’s West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The Arab countries were infuriated with IsraelRead MoreArab Nation’s Position Towards Israel1500 Words   |  6 Pages Arab Nation’s Position Towards Israel The Arab nations in the middle east have for the most part of Israel’s existence been hostile. Arab nations share a tie with the Palestinians who believe they belong to the land on which Israel sits and the Arab nations have supported them in most cases. The Arab nation’s hostile position towards Israel continued through the War of Independence, the Sinai-Suez War, the Six Day War, the War of Attrition, and the Yom Kippur War. After the Arab nation’s longRead MoreThe Current Political Climate Between Egypt And Israel Essay1549 Words   |  7 Pagesconflicts to a cooling smolder, which to this day continues to temper. A short list of influences can be traced from the violent outbreak of the Arab-Israeli war to the Yom Kippur War, to peace accords at Camp David and a subsequent treaty, and finally, to the recent reinstatements of ambassadors for both countries. The cooling process of an Egyptian-Israeli relationship has not been linear, as both sides have fanned flames throughout history, however now, more than ever in historical memory, EgyptRead MoreThe Effect Of The Middle Eastern Conflict1290 Words   |  6 PagesIn October of 1973, a short war between Israel and its regional neighbors, Egypt and Syria, nearly brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of war. The dramatic effect the middle eastern conflict had these two superpower’s relationship is both surprising and concerning. Prior to the Cuban Missile Crises of 1962, a series of threats between the Soviet Union and the United States created distrust and fear between the two countries. Additionally, a large imbalance in power contributedRead MoreThe October War of 1973 Essay1367 Words   |  6 Pages The 20th century could be defined by the many wars that took place during it. Although the average world citizen may only see World War 1 and World War 2 as being the only two major wars that changed the course of world history, the world would not be what it is today if not for the many other respectively smaller wars that took place. The October War of 1973 is one of those wars in which in the grand scheme of things it is overlooked, but it no doubt changed the course of world history. There isRead MoreThe Palestine Of The Ottoman Empire1536 Words   |  7 Pageslived there and those who had emigrated, and the Palestinian Arabs, who had roots from the beginning of the Ottoman Empire. Since the end of World War II, the state of affairs between the Arabs and Israelis have been a topic of discussions for many fields of study. In 1947, the state of Israel was created by the means of a Partition Plan created by the UN Security Council that had given three zones, each to both the Palestinians and Israelis but has since then led to many conflicts throughout the yearsRead More Democracies and Success in War Essay5277 Words   |  22 PagesDemocracies and Success in War Introduction Democratic governments have spread quickly around the world since the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union. Democracy has become one of the most desired regime types amongst states and is contributed to fostering wealth, stability, and even peace. Dan Reiter and Allan Stam argue that democracies are the most successful in war or military combat. In their book, Democracies at War, Stam and Reiter argue that after observing conflictsRead MoreThe United States And The Middle East2128 Words   |  9 Pages Following World War II, the major international powers in the Middle East began to lose influence over the area. In 1946, France and Great Britain were forced to withdrawal from their colonized states by the United Nation Security Council when a delegation of the Middle Eastern countries called for the removal the colonial mandates on Middle East, specifically in Palestine (Department of Public Information). While Britain and France did not completely abandon their influence over the area, the removalRead MoreThe Events Of The 1973 Arab Israeli War3801 Words   |  16 PagesThe 1973 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Yom Kippur War was a war that was fought by an alliance between Arab nations against the State of Israel. The war was fought between the 6th and the 25th of October, 1973. It began as the Arabic alliance launched a surprise attack on Israeli territories during the holiest day of the Judaic calendar, Yom Kippur. Egyptians started their attack from the Sinai Peninsula on the 6th with Syria attacking simultaneously from the Golan Heights. These two regionsRead MoreRelationship Between Rwanda, Israels Perceptions Of The 1994 Rwandan Genocide1249 Words   |  5 Pagesâ€Å"Rwanda, Israel, and Operation Protective Edge.† I wish to continue my current research on Rwandan perceptions of the international community with a more specific focus on its relationship with Israel as well as a broader examination of African-Israeli relations. This research will include fieldwork periods with the expectation for it to produce at least five academic journal articles and organising an academic conference with participants’ presentations published in an edited book. Israel’s current

U.s. Economy s Economy - 1330 Words

1 U.S. ECONOMY U.S. ECONOMY CRISIS Sheryle Leonard Colorado Christian University 2 U.S. ECONOMY Abstract The state of the U.S. economy has an impact on every American. There has been economic depression in this country since the collapse of the housing market in 2007, that has seen widespread unemployment and home foreclosure combined with conservative consumer spending. Research conducted through financial new websites, government reports and survey provided information on where the economy stands today as well as how Americans view the economy. The findings were that there are signs of improvement within the economy, yet those polled indicate they feel there is little change. Important steps have been made towards and economic recovery,†¦show more content†¦So, where does our economy stand now? Many Americans would like an answer to this question. In order to find an answer, we must look at the factors that drive this economy. The U.S Economy currently shows signs of improvement based on a declining unemployment rate increased consumer spending and falling foreclosure rate in 2011. The topic of unemployment is one that has affected Americans greatly during the recession. Millions of people in the United States have found it very difficult gain employment. Kirsten Wilson: Kirsten Wilson: Kirsten Wilson: Kirsten Wilson: 3 U.S. ECONOMY Many more find themselves underemployed or underpaid, or both. Job creation is a difficult task that has been compounded by budget cuts that have eliminated government positions. Currently there are approximately 13.1 million unemployed people in America according to the report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is equal to an unemployment rate of 8.5% (â€Å"Employment Situation Summary†, 2012 p.1). These numbers may sound high very high; however, they actually represent a significant decline in unemployment as the rate has fallen 0.6% since August of 2011. The release by BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) also shows that there was an increase of 212,000