Criminal Law Essay

Criminal law serves to control people's behavior within a specific area of influence; it guards against endangering the general health, prosperity, and safety of citizens. For instance, the Canadian Criminal Code outlines criminal offenses and the associated penalties in Canada. This essay analyzes five case studies in connection to the Canadian Criminal Code; it talks about the crimes, criminal law provisions that apply to them, and the elements of the crimes in the examples given.

Since Rachel adopted a false name and consequently obtained a place as a civil rights activist, she is guilty of false pretense. According to Canada Criminal Code, an action qualifies to be a false pretense if the perpetrator withholds important information relating to his/her current or past state and provides altering information with an intention of benefiting from it. Rachel gained credit from her fraud and is therefore liable to utmost ten years imprisonment.

Voluntary act: Rachel is seen to have voluntarily lied of her original identity. The team that also vets the appointments have shown some voluntary acts by not scrutinizing well Rachel.

Causation: In our case, the student acted on his thoughts to steal the exam by taking a picture of it. Concurrence requires existence of both the criminal intent and criminal action. The only element of crime that is not present in this case study is causation; actual harm caused by the criminal action. The student’s action was therefore, not crime.

Social harm: Rachel has ended up harming the race in which she cheated to be. The opportunity she has taken was to be occupied by the rightful owners. We cannot also rule out the possibility that Rachel will not fully understand and address issues of the blacks as she is not part of them.

Mens rea: refers to the willingness to commit an offence. The student in this case was willing since he was not forced to steal the exam. Actus reus refers to the act of acting upon one’s criminal thoughts.

Possible defense: Gerard has not committed a crime since his action of taking gas without immediate payment was agreed to by the cashier. Gerard met the cashier’s requirement by providing his address. His failure to return and make the payment has three elements of crime; mens rea, actus reus and concurrence.

Fact pattern: Gerard is on his way home and decided to refill gas in his car. After realizing that he had forgotten wallet at home, he gave the excuse to the cashier therefore he is not guilty of any crime.

Conclusion: Gerard is not guilty of any crime as he went after seeking permission despite the fact that he failed to return. He also left behind his address information therefore he is reachable.

John and Vickie’s case

Relevant fact: John and Vickie’s case is not a crime since all the elements of crime are not present. John did not have a criminal thought to harm Vickie in any way. His action of calling the police forty-five minutes after the incident does not meet the grounds of coupled or non-coupled homicide since John was not directly involved in Vickie’s death.

Rule: According to Canadian law, such incidences are considered not to fall under any criminal act.

Voluntary act: John showed some voluntary act by calling the police and explaining all the occurrences though this did not help the situation as Vickie had passed due to too much bleeding.

Causation: The death of Vickie is caused by her overreaction on seeing the sight of John and she tries to run away only to fall down and bled to death.

Social harm: was committed by Vickie since she decided to turn down wedding despite having accepted John’s proposal. Furthermore, Vickie refused to take back items- smartphone and ring that John had bought her despite being requested to take them back. All these incidences were down to actions from Vickie.

Mens rea: In this case, Mens rea can be seen in the act where John hesitated for forty-five minutes before reaching for the assistance from the police and this time was long enough for Vickie to bleed to death.

Possible defense: John has not committed any crime as he did not directly cause the death of Vickie. He can defend himself by claiming that he had gone to Vickie’s place to collect the items he had given to Vickie.

Fact pattern: John had bought Vickie a smartphone and a ring while they were dating. Soon afterwards, Vickie turned down John’s wedding proposal and refused to bring back John’s items. John decided to go for them and immediately after getting the smartphone, Vickie appeared. She overreacted and started running only for her to fall and bleed to death.

Conclusion: From this incident, John can be seen to have committed no crime as he had gone for his rightful property at Vickie’s place. Therefore he is not answerable to any crime.

Oliver’s reckless driving.

Relevant fact: Oliver is guilty of murder since he endangered the lives of the public by his reckless driving regardless of the reason behind it. George is guilty of murder as a result of being in possession of and using explosives carelessly hence costing the lives of three individuals.

Rule: This is in accordance to the Canadian Criminal Code’s provision, 249(1) (a), it states that persons who operate motor vehicles in a way likely to put the public’s wellbeing in jeopardy has committed an offence punishable by law regardless of the perpetrator’s condition while committing the crime. The fact that Oliver did not have intentions to harm individuals does not prove his innocence.

Voluntary act: There is no voluntary act seen in this incident.

Causation: George failed to fulfill his legal duty of handling the explosives in such a way that he did not pose significant threat to the wellbeing of people.

Social harm: The relatives of the victims will be affected socially. The general public will also live in fear of such unpredictable occurrences.

Mens rea: Crime committed by George can be seen as willingness to commit crime since his recklessness in handling the explosives led to death of three individuals. This incident was preventable.

Possible defense: George can argue that he ended up dropping the explosives as a results of health issues that he has. It is possible to have people whose health deteriorations has led them to become reckless.

Fact pattern: George went to buy high explosives so as to drop them in a busy highway to see what will happen and hopes that no one gets hurt. After dropping them, the two occupants of a semi-truck and five more motorists killed in the ensuing pile-up.

Conclusion: George must face the full force of the law because of his reckless acts since this act could have been done in a simulator or any testing ground that will not lead to human life loss.

Fred versus Barney

Relevant facts: Fred has not committed a crime of assault since he does not hurt Barney intentionally.

Rule: According to Canadian Criminal Code, a crime of assault exists when the perpetrator threatens to cause physical harm and/or death of the victim. Fred committed the crime of forcible entry since the pond was in Barney’s property and his action of swimming in it would cause a breach of the owner’s peace.

Voluntary act: Fred shows some voluntary act by calling 911 as this emergency service will help Barney to receive treatments.

Causation: Fred’s action of robbing a liquor store is a crime as a result of self-intoxication. The Canadian Criminal Code argues that individuals who put other’s wellbeing at risk as a result of self-intoxication are criminally at fault. All the elements of crime are present in this case study; the causation being causing/threatening to cause bodily harm to victims.

Social harm: Barney will never remain the same again and he will be lame since his right leg has been broken. There is social harm here since Barney will remain affected psychologically for long.

Mens rea: here is seen through Fred who shows willingness to commit crime. He also shows some instances of social harm since entering Barney’s property was not socially acceptable.

Possible defense: Barney did not assault Fred since the latter had trespassed. Barney was defending his property and was justified to kick Fred out provided the latter did not cause bodily harm to the trespasser. Barney is not guilty of assault since Fred had already entered his property.

Fact pattern: Fred is driving home and suddenly start losing focus on the road and ended up hitting Barney who was crossing the road. Barney’s leg was broken as a result and Fred decides to phone the police to inform them of the incident

Conclusion: Barney should be held responsible because he crossed the road recklessly and ended up endangering his life; Fred also should be charge of his actions as reckless driving is an offense according to the law.

John’s murder case.

Relevant facts: John is guilty of murder. All the elements of crime are present. John premeditated and acted on his criminal thoughts by stabbing the prostitute thereby causing her death. He is liable to life imprisonment.

Rule: The Canadian laws categorize such acts as criminal act since John decided to take the laws into his own hands rather than reporting the incident to the authorities for actions to be taken against the prostitute.

Voluntary act: The prostitute voluntarily insulted John of his inabilities and John voluntarily stabbed her to death.

Causation: In this case, the prostitute is the one who triggered all the occurrences because she started laughing at John’s inability to have intercourse and therefore John’s action were due to provocation by the prostitute.

Social harm: The acts by the prostitute caused John social harm as this insults works to demoralize John.

Mens rea: John willingly committed the crime of killing the prostitute as he was fully aware that that was a crime and decided to act out of anger.

Possible defense: in this case, John is likely to defend himself that his action were triggered by the prostitute as she provoked him on his impotence. This is as good as sexual harassment by the prostitute and therefore the law need to be smooth on John as such offense committed by the prostitute is punishable by the law.

Fact pattern: The prostitute decided to mock John of his disability to have intercourse; John in response decides to stab her to death.

Conclusion: John is answerable of the murder crime as he did what led to the loss of life of an individual and therefore should face the consequences of his criminal acts