Recent orders
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
By (Insert both names)
(Name of class)
(Professor’s name)
(Institution)
(City, State)
(Date)
Criminal Liability is actually what unlocks the logical struc of the Criminal Law. Element of a crime that the prosecutor needs to prove is a principle of criminal liability. There are a number of crimes that involve all the principles of liability; these are called “crimes of criminal conduct”. Homicide, for example, is a crime because all one is needed to prove actus reus, mens rea, causation harm and concurrence. The requirement that the prosecutor must provide evidence in each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt, is referred to “corpus delicti rule”. Burglary, for example, is a crime because all you need to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt, this is referred to as an actus reus concurring with a mens rea. There are crimes that involve all the principles of criminal liability, which are referred to as true crimes. .Given this scenario, criminal law has been broken. First, Marley and his friend Bob have intention of intruding and stealing from Scrooge. It states under the theft act state a person is guilty of theft of burglary if he or she enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser and intents to commit the offence of burglary. Though Marley is dead, they both broke the law.We could also say they had equipped themselves for stealing. The theft act, states that a person is guilty if he has with him any items for use in the course of the incident or which the items are in connection with any burglary. Given our case, an offence was committed by them.Marley gets to died before all is heard by the police, already a blame game is created by Bob that he was drunk before accompanying Marley to Scrooge house. The question is why he fled from the incident when he got struck on the arm by Scrooge? It is important to understand if Bob is guilty. When Bob was in the incident, he was holding items which he later dropped, if truly he did not know what was happening and was drunk then why did he fled away leaning his friend behind. Bob broke the law because right back his mind he knew what he was doing.Scrooge is under pressure, he has actually caused one’s life. Under the law of homicide, human life is of unique value. While danger to life is an element of most crimes, the law focuses on it directly, by declaring criminal in a range of conduct that actually causes death. Since life is valued highly, such conduct is not allowed more generally than conduct causing other kinds of harm. Given our case, homicide has taken place since the act of killing a human being by another human being has occured.Given that homicide is an issue, the law makes no distinctions among humans as victims. The human life is always a priority thus protected, and none of the criteria is worth by which we may classify persons for other purposes is material. Scrooge has to answer on that given that he used a sword to take one’s life and harm another. The question behind this is, why the sword? Did he intent to harm? Was Scrooge frightened at the time of incident? Had such an incident ever happened before? This entire question will determine whether he broke the law or not.In homicide, if someone acts with no intent to kill or if he or she has the intent but the death occurs, it may likely not be obvious whether his or her conduct or other contributing factor for which someone else is criminally responsible should be regarded as the cause of death. The matter is then left to the trier of fact, who is to decide on the basis of ordinary experience and common sense whether to attribute causal responsibility.For Scrooge case this homicide would have been referred as Justifiable, though there are no fault homicides. It involves the death of someone under a circumstance of necessity or duty for example self defense by scrooge in the time of the incident.Scrooge still has to defend himself on his act. To convict a defendant of crime, the prosecutor must and always provide prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of the process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. For our case, Self-Defense would be. Self-defense is a defense asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, for example, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder or battery (striking someone). The defendant could admit that he did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was a result of the other person’s threatening actions. Scrooge would do the same, arguing that there was a presence of a threatening action. In most self-defense cases the core issues are who is the aggressor, was the defendant’s belief that self-defense as necessary a reasonable one, and If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?Self-defense is always rooted in the belief that one should be given an opportunity to protect themselves from physical harm. It means that a person does not have to wait until he is struck to act in self-defense. In law, if a reasonable person in same circumstances would think that he is about to be physically attacked, an individual has the right to strike first and prevent the attack from the other person. However, any act of self-defense one cannot use more force than is reasonable, if one used too much force he may be regarded as guilty of a crime. Scrooge could be referred as guilty under this state, the fact that he used force and by so doing it resulted to Marley death.Bob could also defend himself, stating that he was Under the Influence of alcohol. It is argued that if someone commits a crime under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and him or her mental functioning was impaired, they cannot be held accountable for their actions. However, voluntary intake of drugs or alcohol does not excuse criminal conduct. If the defendant knows (or should know) that drugs and alcohol affect one’s mental functioning, they should be held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of the voluntary use.Scrooge would also refer himself under this defense, that at the time of crime he was under the influence of alcohol since he was at home resting or taking a nap. Though his take could have been voluntary, he being at his house and disturbed could not have him guilty. Still Scrooge is not found guilty.In Some states, an exception to this general rule is allowed. If someone is accused of committing a crime that requires some form of specific intent meaning that it was intended with consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to consequences, the accused could also argue that he or she was too drunk to have formed intended to commit the crime. This is a partial defense; however, it does not entirely excuse the defendant for his action. For such a situation, the defendant will be convicted of another crime that doesn’t require proving the specific intent. For example, someone accused of assault with the specific intent to kill another but only convicted the assault with a deadly weapon, will not require specific intent.In law, assault theoretically mean different things, it is referred as an act which possibly recklessly or intentionally causes someone to apprehend immediate or unlawful personal violence. Recently there has been modern trend to use the term ‘assault’ in a broad sense to include both battery and assault. Scrooge could be accused in term of assault but could argue on ‘actus reus of assault’, that there was a requirement of immediacy in the crime of assault. It will mean that Scrooge must have perceived some form of threat and as a result there was the need of action, there and then. Most courts have on occasion, given a somewhat liberal interpretation to the concept of immediacy.Conclusion Given this case, Bob is Guilty because he knew what he was doing at the time of the incident. He fled away leaving his friend Marley behind while he dropped the items he was holding.For Scrooge, he is not guilty because he acted according to defend himself using the sword and at the time of the incident he was under threat.
Literature Referencing
Books (and chapters within books)
A book by a single author will be cited like this: MT Molan, Criminal Law:Cases and Materials (3 rd edn Cavendish, London 2005) 29 The author’s initials or first name ( if known ) come before the surname and the title is in italics. The edition, publisher, place of publication, and date, follow in brackets. If the edition of the book you used is later than the first, which is quite likely, you MUST specify this. If you need to give the page numbers for the specific section you consulted, add them last. If the book is a collection of chapters edited by one or more people, use (ed) or (eds) after their name(s). For example:
M Elliott (ed), Beatson, Matthews and Elliott’s Administrative Law :Text and Materials (OUP, Oxford 2005).
The above example also shows that well established books continue to be known by their original titles long after their original authors have died and each new editor must be identified.
For multiple authors, insert ‘and’ between each name for up to three authors. For more than three authors, give the details of the first author, and add ‘and others’, e.g.
Damien Chalmers and others, European Union law : text and materials (CUP, Cambridge 2006 )
Chapters within Books
To identify any particular chapter in a book of edited readings, you must use the word in and put the title of the chapter in single inverted commas. For example:
MA Jones, ‘Breach of Duty’ in A Grubb (ed), Principles of Medical Law (2 nd edn OUP, Oxford 2004)
Long Term Effects on Children Raised In Dysfunctional Households
Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Long Term Effects on Children Raised In Dysfunctional Households
Family dysfunction is a condition that interferes with healthy family functioning and most families have some periods in which functioning are impaired. Healthy families usually return to normal functioning after crisis such as death in family, parent’s illness ends. In dysfunctional families, there are always profound impacts on children who later grow with the negative effect in life (Hunt Web). Some of the dysfunctional families include substance abuse, emotional and mental problems, child neglect, religious fundamentalist families, alcoholism, child abuse, or extreme parental rigidity. Children in dysfunctional families do not always get their needs met and negative patterns of parental behavior usually become prevail in children’s lives.
Hunt explains that children raised from dysfunctional families normally suffer from low self-esteem, feel depressed or anxious, and that they may self-sabotage their goals and dreams or fail to actualize their potential (Web). Moreover, these kinds of children may unwittingly act out of a life script that had been written by early negative programming, face challenges of making money or settling down into a satisfactory career or have difficulties with intimacy issues. Another serious effect of children coming from dysfunctional families is sometimes out of touch with their feelings, spirituality, and other challenges that may arise from their stormy childhood with a spoiled self (Blair Web). Some of the effects of dysfunctional families are discussed under the following subtopics;
Uninvolved Parents
Uninvolved parents typically provide for their children’s basic and physical needs but lack emotional connection, distant and aloof, frequently attempt to adopt their children and are indifferent and dismissive of many of the children’s fundamental needs. Moreover, uninvolved children are usually disinterested in vital areas of their children’s lives such as school work and hobbies and are always uncaring about how their children behave in general (Hunt Web). This kind of parenting may have many negative outcomes for children that touch most of the significant areas of life such as greater proneness to stress (Blair Web). Children raised from uninvolved parents may have increased risk of drug and alcohol abuse and are further likely to develop problematic behaviors or delinquency. Additionally, children raised from uninvolved parents tend to perform poorly in academics and are likely to have challenge establishing and maintaining relationships or have poor social skills.
Parents with addictions
Parents with addictions usually impose dire consequences to their children among them physical, intellectual, social, and emotional problems that may continue or emerge until later in children’s lives. Addiction usually run in families and children of addicted parents are more at risk for drug or alcohol abuse than compared to children from other functional families because of both genetic and family environment factors. Substance abuse by parents and children are strongly correlated and adolescents who perceive that parents are permissive about the use of drugs are more likely to use drugs. Moreover, children from addicted parents always become mistrustful of others, have difficulty understanding emotions of others, and are at higher risk for placement outside the home. There are always adolescent runaways and homeless youths reported globally because of their parents’ harshness. According to Blair, such kind of children also exhibit symptoms of depression and anxiety and further experience greater physical and mental health problems as well as higher health and welfare costs (Web).
Authoritarian Parenting
Hunt asserts that authoritarian parents usually have the following characteristics: strict rules and expectations, very demanding but not responsive, do not express much warmth or nurturing, utilize punishments with little or no explanation, and do not give children choices or options (Web). Some of the possible effects of this kind of parenting include children rarely learning to think on their own, children feel pressured always and are usually withdrawn socially. Moreover, children raised in authoritarian parenting may develop resentment of authority, have low self-esteem, develop fear of failure and may develop a tendency to act out in most cases. Finally these kind of children may be very hungry, resentful or frustrated and can find it hard dealing with their anger.
Trust Issues
Parents may always cheat for many reasons but for whatever reason, there are always impacts on the children’s life. Such kind of information is really damaging to children who may develop some trust issues in their later lives. They may feel that their future boyfriends or spouse will be unfaithful or even carry resentment for the cheating parent or both. Children will always feel embarrassed and may even be too angered to throw up the infidelity to the cheating parent. Furthermore, children faced with trust issues may flash back what their parents did and carry it with them the rest of their lives or even decide to adopt negative things such as adultery that their parents did.
Considering stages of Psychosocial Development, Erik Erikson asserts that children normally develop in a predetermined order especially how the children socialize and how their sense of self is affected by socializing. Successful completion of every stage of life may lead to healthy personality as well as good interactions with others but failure to complete the stages may lead to a more unhealthy personality. This kind of theory directly applies to the children in dysfunctional families who are usually faced by numerous challenges (Hunt Web).
According to Blair, children brought up in dysfunctional families normally undergo maximum mental health damage because in most cases, they spend time servicing their negative identity, which is more important to them than education (Web). Thinking oneself as worthless usually reflects in the life of children more than education issues thus causing them to perform poorly in academics. Such kind of children takes themselves as inferior beings incapable of learning anything particularly things that negate their negative identity thus leading to high rate of dropouts.
It is apparent that children born in dysfunctional families have negative feelings, thoughts, and behaviors that are derived from the nature of their families. The negative set of patterns adopted by the children make up their personality, which develops as they go through different experiences in life (Hunt Web). Children from dysfunctional families may sometimes have personality disorders that may make it difficult for them to change their past unusual or unexpected behaviors. Additionally, children brought up in dysfunctional families normally develop impulsive behaviors that expose them to many negative consequences such as distress or regret in their lives. In summary, children in dysfunctional families do not always get their needs met and negative patterns of parental behavior usually become prevail in children’s lives.
Works Cited
Blair, Tony. Blaming a moral decline for the riots makes good headlines but bad policy. The Guardian, 20 Aug. 2014. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/20/tony-blair-riots-crime-family>.
Hunt, June. Understanding and Dealing With a Dysfunctional Family. The Christian Post, 8 Jul. 2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2014. <http://www.christianpost.com/news/understanding-and-dealing-with-a-dysfunctional-family-77826/>.
New Hollywood Cinema An Introduction by Geoff King
Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction by Geoff King
In this book, King examines the Hollywood “Renaissance” from the late 1960s to the late 1970s as well as some of the industrial factors that shape the current dominance of the corporate blockbuster. King begins by stating that there are two distinct periods when addressing “New Hollywood” including the Hollywood Renaissance and the New Hollywood. Geoff King analyses new Hollywood dynamically and accessibly in his text and discusses diverse films, film makers and film companies apart from concentrating on the interactions between the film texts, social contexts, and their producers by using examples across Hollywood and its genres. He further discusses how positions of studios within media conglomerate, and the relationship between production for big and small screens as well as the influence of television, advertising and franchising on the New Hollywood have been transformed the form of the films (King 137-140).
King has established many similarities and trends corresponding throughout all years of Hollywood and detailed the differences between the two Hollywood periods through many different lenses such as industrial and cultural factors. King describes the first period as a period that was marred with lots of social upheaval all over America that hugely influenced the audience. He further explains that Hollywood Renaissance experienced a rise of youth counterculture that tapped into a new audience for Hollywood and that it was characterized by stylistic borrowings from French New Wave cinema that contributed to Hollywood’s finest.
On the other hand, New Hollywood period was marked by the concept of the blockbuster, an aspect that dominates the Hollywood scene to date because of money as argued by the King. King considers New Hollywood period in an industrial standpoint and posits that because studios dominate distribution and are significant in huge media corporations, there are huge profits that are realized in the Hollywood (30). He asserts that current movies are based off previous material, what he terms ‘pre-sold movies’ and says that “Jaws” marked the beginning of the modern blockbuster film.
King has explored various angles of Hollywood to show how current and past Hollywood fit between culturally films that make one question and think and the giant films that do not make one think but make money. He has highlighted the cult of directors that controlled the renaissance period but their root are traceable in the studio era and argues that hybrid genres and mixing and mashing of genres is not a new idea. King disproves the concept that New Hollywood is not as different from studio Hollywood as is conventionally thought and further posits that in the middle of Hollywood productions, there are genre films that account for most of Hollywood productions. King also tackles the issue of stardom and how studios control the stars and lock them into deals by paying them for movies even if the movies does not get made. King further argues that spectacle has narrative and that Hollywood has never been married to a classical sense of narrative.
Generally, King has greatly showed Hollywood over the course of different times and from multiple perspectives. There is much to admire in King’s book especially the ability to eschew the use of large-scale theory in favor in favor of a more considered appreciation of technical issues regarded vital in the study of Hollywood. Although the book does not break a lot of fresh ground, it may remain relevant to many students because he teaches using clear language.
Works Cited
King, Geoff. New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction. London: I.B. Tauris, 2002. Internet resource.